Keri's practice is devoted to Delaware workers' compensation and employment law defense (including discrimination and whistleblower protection), in addition to federal employment law defense. Throughout her legal career, she has represented clients including automobile assembly plants, nursing homes, hospitals, security companies and retailers in matters pertaining to workers' compensation and employment law. She is also experienced in handling matters for non-profits and fast food franchises, and advising clients in relation to owner controlled insurance policies. Keri is especially adept at assisting and educating small employers on issues pertaining to workers' compensation.
In addition to managing the Workers' Compensation Department in the Wilmington office, Keri has also served as a member of the firm's Executive Committee Advisory Council, a distinguished group of firm leaders whose purpose is to enhance the communication between the Executive Committee and younger members of the firm's professional ranks.
While attending Widener University School of Law, Keri worked for the Delaware Department of Labor, where she handled a wide variety of employment, labor and civil rights issues. Keri investigated allegations of employment discrimination and wage and hour violations, including alleged prevailing wage violations and child labor violations.
Keri is a graduate of the University of Delaware, where she received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Criminal Justice. She remains involved with her alma mater, serving as an advisor for the Alpha Sigma Alpha sorority.
Results
Thought Leadership
What's Hot in Workers' Comp
Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Claim Based on Witness Credibility
September 22, 2026
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a Superior Court decision upholding the Industrial Accident Board's denial of a petition for workers' compensation benefits. The Court ruled that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence, deferring to the Board's findings regarding witness credibility and medical expert testimony. Prince Parker worked for The Borsello Companies, Inc., where his duties included operating a forklift and mixing mortar. He alleged a lumbar spine injury on February 19, 2024 and reported his injury immediately, although the company denied receiving any such report. It was not until ten days later, on February 29, 2024, Parker sent a text message to a project manager stating his work activities were "screwing [his] back up." Parker was advised to contact the company president. There was no evidence he did and continued his normal work activities. In mid-March 2024, Parker was terminated for insubordination. On March 21, 2024, over a month after the alleged work incident, Parker went to the emergency room for back pain. Emergency room records reflected Parker reported his back pain had been ongoing for over a year, denied any recent trauma, and stated he had not followed up on a prior referral to see a specialist. After the employer denied the claim for benefits, Parker filed a petition with the Board seeking wage loss benefits and payment of outstanding medical bills. The Board heard conflicting medical expert testimony and testimony from the claimant and employer witnesses. The Board, after hearing the testimony, denied Parker's petition, finding that he failed to establish a compensable injury. They did not find Parker’s testimony credible that he suffered a work injury. The Superior Court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court addressed and rejected several challenges raised by Parker. Most importantly, the court emphasized that under Delaware law, the Board has exclusive responsibility for weighing evidence, determining witness credibility, and resolving conflicts in testimony. The court deferred to the Board's decision to find Parker’s testimony not credible due to his ten-day delay in reporting back pain, his failure to seek immediate medical treatment, and his emergency room statements denying recent trauma. Since the claimant’s expert relied on the information from Parker, his opinion was discredited. The Board properly found the defense expert’s opinion more persuasive. It is extremely important to ascertain all information related to when the alleged injury occurred, how it occurred and determine if the injured worker is providing the same version of events to the medical providers and the claims handler. Cases turn on credibility and the Board is tasked with making those findings.
Case Law Alerts
In order to qualify for unemployment benefits, the unemployed individual must be able and available to work.
July 1, 2023
The plaintiff had been out of work for medical reasons for several months. She was medically cleared to return to work in March 2020, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic and her pre-existing medical condition, her medical provider felt it “was too dangerous for her to work until she was vaccinated.” She asked her employer for a position where she did not have to interact with customers. The employer was not able to offer her a position with this restriction. She filed for unemployment benefits and received benefits until December of 2021, when she received notice that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits. 19 Del. C. § 3315(3), requires that employees be able and available to work in order to receive unemployment benefits. The Claims Deputy, Appeals Referee and the Unemployment Insurance Board found that the plaintiff was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was not able and available to work. Even though she provided testimony that she had been looking for work-from-home positions, the evidence established that her medical provider had not released her to return to work without restrictions. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the Delaware Superior Court. An appeal to the Superior Court evaluates the record to determine if the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. The decision will only be overturned if the Board has acted “arbitrarily and capriciously or exceeds the bounds of reason in view of the circumstances … so as to produce injustice.” In the appeal, the plaintiff argued that she was able, available, and actively seeking work and would have stayed employed had she been accommodated by not having to interact with customers. The court made clear that a claimant is not “able and available” if she is cleared to work with restrictions that an employer cannot accommodate. The court found that the Board’s decision to deny the plaintiff benefits was supported by substantial evidence. The Board’s decision was affirmed and ordered the plaintiff to repay the unemployment benefits she received. Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.
News
106 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America
August 20, 2026
98 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America
August 20, 2025
