Del. Top Court Clarifies Distinguishes Preexisting Conditions, Prior Work-Related Injuries

Case File

Is there a difference between a preexisting condition and a prior work-related injury for purposes of Delaware workers' compensation law? There is, and, as Simply Research subscribers know, it comes down to policy.

Case

Ferrell v. City of Wilmington, No. 152, 2025 (Del. 12/04/25)

What Happened?

A part-time worker for a fire company sustained a compensable work injury to his back. The worker accepted a commutation of the claim with the company's workers' compensation insurance carrier. The commutation globally resolved the claim and released the insurer from further liability with respect to the injury.

Eight years later, while working for the Wilmington, Delaware, Fire Department, the worker injured his back again. The fire department denied his claim for workers' compensation, and the parties submitted the disputed claim to the Industrial Accident Board.

The IAB held that the latter incident was a recurrence of the worker's former injury rather than an aggravation of that injury.

Because the worker commuted his first claim and released the fire company from further liability, he could not recover unless the latter injury was aggravation caused by a second event. Thus, the IAB's holding left the worker without a compensable claim, and the Superior Court affirmed the IAB's decision, prompting the worker to appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

In Delaware, a recurrence of a work injury is compensable by the original carrier that covered that injury, while an aggravation of an injury caused by a second accident or event is compensable by the carrier that insured the employer at the time of the aggravation.

What the Delaware Supreme Court Said

The court was faced with two precedent cases that could control the analysis.

(1) In Standard Distributing Co. v. Nally, 630 A.2d 644 (Del. 1993), the Delaware Supreme Court held that the rule for determining successive carrier responsibility in recurrence/aggravation disputes places responsibility on the carrier on the risk at the time of the initial injury when the claimant, with continuing symptoms and disability, sustains a further injury unaccompanied by any intervening or untoward event that could be deemed the proximate cause of the new condition.

(2) In the case that worker argued controlled, Duvall v. Charles Connell Roofing, 564 A.2d 1132 (Del. 1989) the Delaware Supreme Court adopted a "substantial causation" standard for cases in which the IAB must determine whether a claimant who suffers from a pre-existing condition may make a claim for workers' compensation when a work event exacerbates the preexisting injury or condition.

In this case, the court found that the IAB correctly applied the Nally standard, which assigns liability between successive insurance carriers in cases where an employee seeks compensation for a work-related injury that is causally related to an injury compensated by a previous employer or carrier.

Workers' Comp 101: In Nally, the Delaware Supreme Court defined "recurrence" as "the return of an impairment without the intervention of a new or independent accident" and "aggravation" as "making the condition worse and more severe than it was before the event."

Applying Nally, the court determined that the IAB correctly found that the latter injury was a recurrence of the former and that, even if it was an aggravation, the IAB correctly found that any aggravation from the latter incident was not caused by an intervening or untoward event that could be deemed the proximate cause of the new condition.

The court pointed out that for a subsequent carrier to be held liable for an employee's work-related injury, the new incident must have been the producing cause of an industrial accident resulting in a changed physical condition. Also, for a subsequent carrier to be liable for an aggravation, the employee's new or worsening of his previous injury must be attributable to an "untoward event."

Why did the Nally standard apply and not the one from Duvall?

"The Nally standard pertains to assigning liability between two carriers when two work-related incidents result in injuries to the same area of the body," the court wrote. "In contrast, the standard announced in Duvall relates to whether an employee with a preexisting condition should be compensated at all when the employee is injured at work and the same injury may not have been sustained by an employee without the medical predisposition."

So, the Duvall standard permits medically pre-disposed claimants to seek compensation when they are injured at work, while Nally assigns liability between employers or carriers when an employe suffers serial work-related injuries.

Verdict: The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's opinion.

Takeaway

In Delaware, in successive carrier disputes where compensability is conceded, carrier liability is fixed on primary responsibility for risks as they arise and, as a matter of policy to avoid delay and confusion, continues as long as the consequences of that injury are present.

Share This Article: