Wilson Gualpa and Michael Owen Serve as Panelists at DSBA Workers' Compensation Breakfast Seminar

Partners Wilson Gualpa and Michael Owen served as panelists at the Delaware State Bar Association's (DSBA) recent Workers' Compensation Breakfast Seminar.

Displaced Worker – Burdens of Proof

Wilson Gualpa joined a panel examining the displaced worker doctrine and how the burden of proof moves between the parties. The panel worked through the standard set out in Miranda v. DuPont, which allows a claimant to remain on total disability even when physically capable of returning to work, where the injury means the worker will no longer be regularly employed in any well-known branch of the competitive labor market without a specially created position.

The discussion traced the sequence of proof in a termination petition, where the employer must first establish that the claimant is no longer totally disabled, after which the burden shifts to the claimant to prove displacement. That proof can be either prima facie, under the unskilled-worker analysis of Hensley v. Artic Roofing, Inc., or actual displacement through reasonable, but unsuccessful, job search efforts. If displacement is established, the burden returns to the employer to identify jobs within the claimant's restrictions and vocational profile under Hooten v. Blue Hen Disposal. Panelists examined the employability factors courts weighed under Hutchens v. Town of Milton: age, education, general background, occupation and experience, emotional stability, and the nature and availability of suitable work. Crucially, they explored the Superior Court's May 2026 decision in Franceschi-Rodriguez v. Perdue Foods, LLC, which held that a language barrier alone does not establish prima facie displacement but remains relevant to the analysis. The panel concluded by exploring the evidentiary realities of these cases, including vocational expert testimony, functional capacity evaluations, surveillance, and lifestyle witnesses.

Defining a Claim

Michael Owen spoke on a panel exploring the threshold questions necessary when evaluating whether an injured worker has a claim in the state of Delaware, which is organized around four standard questions: Does the claimant qualify as an employee? Does Delaware have jurisdiction? Is there a compensable injury, and did the injury arise out of and in the course of employment?

The panel reviewed employee status under 19 Del. C. § 2301(10) and the statutory exclusions for household workers, farm laborers, casual employment, certain inmates, and uncompensated sports officials. They examined the jurisdictional reach of § 2303 for out-of-state injuries, including when employment is principally localized in Delaware or arises under a Delaware contract of hire. On compensability, the discussion distinguished between the four categories for an accident: fixed time and place, cumulative detrimental effect, mental or psychological injury under State v. Cephas, and occupational disease under Air Mod Corp. v. Newton and Anderson v. General Motors, separating the two connections the statute requires: course of employment (analyzed by time, place, and circumstances) and arising out of employment, which hinges on the nature, conditions, and incidents of the work.

Wilson and Mike presenting from opposite ends of a claim's life cycle (what makes a claim compensable at the outset versus what happens to disability benefits years later) reflects Morris James' breadth of knowledge and standard of excellence in our Delaware workers' compensation practice.