Twice Injured Firefighter Faces Setback with Second Denied Workers’ Compensation Claim

A Delaware firefighter, Corey Ferrell, has faced a significant setback in his pursuit of workers’ compensation benefits following two workplace injuries. His second claim was denied due to the manner in which he settled his first claim, raising important questions about the nuances of workers’ compensation law.

Ferrell’s second injury was deemed a recurrence of his initial injury, which he had previously settled by accepting a lump sum payment. This settlement included a release of the workers’ compensation insurer from any further liability, complicating his current situation.

Earlier this month, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the denial of Ferrell’s claim. The court clarified that, according to established law, a recurrence of a work injury is compensable by the original insurer that covered the injury. In contrast, an aggravation of an injury caused by a subsequent accident is the responsibility of the insurer that was active at the time of that aggravation.

In 2015, while employed by the Belvedere Fire Company, Ferrell was involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in a compensable back injury. By 2018, he opted for a commutation of his claim, accepting a one-time lump sum payment and releasing the insurer from any further obligations.

Fast forward to 2023, Ferrell sustained another back injury while working for the Wilmington Fire Department. During a call at a high-rise apartment building, he felt a “pop” in his back while carrying a high-rise pack weighing 30–40 pounds up the stairs. An MRI later revealed disc bulges, herniations, and a protrusion in the same area affected by his 2015 injury.

When Ferrell filed a claim for workers’ compensation, the Wilmington Fire Department denied it, leading to a dispute that was submitted to the Industrial Accident Board (IAB).

The IAB determined that the 2023 incident did not aggravate the 2015 injury and did not result in a new, compensable injury. They noted that a comparison of Ferrell’s MRIs indicated a typical progression of spinal deterioration stemming from the earlier injury. Furthermore, the act of walking up the stairs with the high-rise packs was not considered a “genuine intervening event.”

Consequently, the IAB concluded that the 2023 incident was a recurrence of Ferrell’s 2015 injury, meaning that liability remained with the insurer for Belvedere, which had already been released from responsibility due to the earlier commutation.

Ferrell subsequently appealed the IAB’s decision to the Superior Court, which upheld the IAB’s findings. The case then escalated to the Delaware Supreme Court, which recently concurred with the lower court and the IAB.

During the appeal, Ferrell argued on two fronts. First, he claimed that the IAB misapplied the “aggravation” versus “recurrence” analysis as established in Standard Distributing Co. v. Nally. He contended that the 2023 incident constituted an unforeseen event that led to a separate compensable injury.

Secondly, he asserted that the IAB’s decision lacked substantial evidence. However, the high court determined that both the Superior Court and the IAB had applied the correct standards and that their decision was indeed supported by substantial evidence. Thus, the court affirmed the denial of Ferrell’s claim.

According to the court, while the distinction between a recurrence and an aggravation typically serves to allocate liability between insurers, it does not usually result in a lapse of coverage for the worker. However, because Ferrell had commuted his first claim and released Belvedere from further liability, he could only recover if the 2023 injury was deemed an aggravation caused by a new event.

Topics
Workers’ Compensation
Talent

A Delaware firefighter, Corey Ferrell, has faced a significant setback in his pursuit of workers’ compensation benefits following two workplace injuries. His second claim was denied due to the manner in which he settled his first claim, raising important questions about the nuances of workers’ compensation law.

Ferrell’s second injury was deemed a recurrence of his initial injury, which he had previously settled by accepting a lump sum payment. This settlement included a release of the workers’ compensation insurer from any further liability, complicating his current situation.

Earlier this month, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the denial of Ferrell’s claim. The court clarified that, according to established law, a recurrence of a work injury is compensable by the original insurer that covered the injury. In contrast, an aggravation of an injury caused by a subsequent accident is the responsibility of the insurer that was active at the time of that aggravation.

In 2015, while employed by the Belvedere Fire Company, Ferrell was involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in a compensable back injury. By 2018, he opted for a commutation of his claim, accepting a one-time lump sum payment and releasing the insurer from any further obligations.

Fast forward to 2023, Ferrell sustained another back injury while working for the Wilmington Fire Department. During a call at a high-rise apartment building, he felt a “pop” in his back while carrying a high-rise pack weighing 30–40 pounds up the stairs. An MRI later revealed disc bulges, herniations, and a protrusion in the same area affected by his 2015 injury.

When Ferrell filed a claim for workers’ compensation, the Wilmington Fire Department denied it, leading to a dispute that was submitted to the Industrial Accident Board (IAB).

The IAB determined that the 2023 incident did not aggravate the 2015 injury and did not result in a new, compensable injury. They noted that a comparison of Ferrell’s MRIs indicated a typical progression of spinal deterioration stemming from the earlier injury. Furthermore, the act of walking up the stairs with the high-rise packs was not considered a “genuine intervening event.”

Consequently, the IAB concluded that the 2023 incident was a recurrence of Ferrell’s 2015 injury, meaning that liability remained with the insurer for Belvedere, which had already been released from responsibility due to the earlier commutation.

Ferrell subsequently appealed the IAB’s decision to the Superior Court, which upheld the IAB’s findings. The case then escalated to the Delaware Supreme Court, which recently concurred with the lower court and the IAB.

During the appeal, Ferrell argued on two fronts. First, he claimed that the IAB misapplied the “aggravation” versus “recurrence” analysis as established in Standard Distributing Co. v. Nally. He contended that the 2023 incident constituted an unforeseen event that led to a separate compensable injury.

Secondly, he asserted that the IAB’s decision lacked substantial evidence. However, the high court determined that both the Superior Court and the IAB had applied the correct standards and that their decision was indeed supported by substantial evidence. Thus, the court affirmed the denial of Ferrell’s claim.

According to the court, while the distinction between a recurrence and an aggravation typically serves to allocate liability between insurers, it does not usually result in a lapse of coverage for the worker. However, because Ferrell had commuted his first claim and released Belvedere from further liability, he could only recover if the 2023 injury was deemed an aggravation caused by a new event.

Topics
Workers’ Compensation
Talent