Opinions Digested in Delaware Law Weekly for the Issue of
CONSITUTIONAL LAW Freedom of Speech l State Troopers l Garcetti l Petition Clause Foraker v. Chaffinch DeFAX Case No. D62978 (3d Cir. Aug. 30, 2007).
Pursuant to Garcetti v. Ceballos, plaintiff-troopers’ complaints about conditions in a firearms training unit facility were not protected speech under the First Amendment because plaintiffs were acting within their job duties in making those complaints; plaintiffs did not engage in activities protected by the First Amendment’s Petition Clause because they made their complaints to a state agency in its role as their employer. Affirmed.
CIVIL PRACTICE Trial Administration l Reargument l Misapprehension of Facts or Principles of Law In re Kent County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances Litig. Consolidat-ed DeFAX Case No. D62979 (Del. Ch. Aug. 29, 2007).
The Court of Chancery neither misapprehended any material facts nor misapplied any established principles of law in concluding that petitioners had not demonstrated a reasonable probability of success in their challenge, filed under 9 Del. C. § 4959, to the retroactive application of Kent County’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances. Motion for reargument denied.
EMPLOYMENT Employment Contracts l Signature l Handwriting Expert Swinford v. World Aviation Systems, Inc. DeFAX Case No. D62980 (Del. Ch. Aug. 29, 2007).
Where an experienced handwriting expert testified that no one other than plaintiff could have signed the parties’ employment agreement and where other evidence indicated that plaintiff had signed the disputed agreement, plaintiff was bound to the agreement’s terms. Plaintiff denied relief.
REAL PROPERTY Partition l Jurisdiction l Family Court l 10 Del. C. § 921(14) In re Real Estate of Wells v. Wells DeFAX Case No. D62977 (Del. Ch. Aug. 15, 2007).
The Family Court did not have exclusive jurisdiction over this partition action pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 921(14) because the parties were not persons who were formerly married to each other. Master’s final report on motions issued.
CIVIL PRACTICE Trial Administration l Motion for Clarification l Prior Rulings on Testimony Dunlap v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. DeFAX Case No. D62981 (Del. Super. Sept. 7, 2007).
Defendant was not entitled to “clarification” of the court’s prior rulings regarding the proffered trial testimony of a neurologist and the potential testimony of an attorney because defendant did not satisfy the requirements for reargument. Motion for clarification denied.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION Disability l Partial Disability Benefits l Return to Work l Physician’s Instructions West v. Wal-Mart, Inc. DeFAX Case No. D62984 (Del. Super. Aug. 29, 2007).
The Industrial Accident Board did not err in denying claimant partial disability benefits where claimant’s treating physician had released her to return to work in 2003, but she did not return to work until 2004. Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION Disability l Partial Disability Benefits l Employer’s Job Offer l Refusal Castro v. Tilton Terrace DeFAX Case No. D62983 (IAB Aug. 16, 2007).
Despite her refusal of a job offer from employer, claimant was entitled to partial disability benefits where unrebutted medical evidence supported claimant’s decision to refuse that job. Petition to determine additional compensation due granted.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION Medical Expenses l Physical Therapy l Work Injury l Muscular Dystrophy Clogg v. Custom Decorative Mouldings DeFAX Case No. D62982 (IAB Aug. 16, 2007).
Accepting the opinion of employer’s expert, an orthopedist, as more persuasive, the Industrial Accident Board determined that claimant’s need for additional physical therapy was due to his underlying muscular dystrophy, rather than his work-related ankle fracture. Petition to determine additional compensation due denied.
|