Thought Leadership

In 2022, the Delaware Supreme Court, en banc, reversed a decision of Superior Court Judge Karsnitz in a pro hac vice matter, writing that “[b]oth the tone and the explicit language of the Superior Court’s memorandum opinion and order suggest that the courts’ interest extended beyond the mere propriety and advisability of Wood’s continued involvement in the case before it.” Page v. Oath Inc., 270 A.3d 833 (Del. 2022), 2022 WL 162965 at *3.  Two of the justices that decided Page recently heard and decided Red House Motors v. Bayly, No. 234, 2025, 2026 WL 568964 (Del. Mar. 2, 2026), again reversing a decision of Judge Karsnitz.

The law is clear that, in workers’ compensation matters, the board is the finder of fact.  If a board decision is appealed, the reviewing court is required to defer to the factual findings of the board, so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.  Unfortunately, some judges seek to substitute their factual findings for those of the board, often resulting in significant litigation expenses for the parties.

Such was the case of Red House Motors v. Bayly.  This case initially came before the board as a coverage matter.  Robert Bayly was a sole proprietor of several businesses.  The employees of the businesses were covered by workers’ compensation insurance.  After being injured at work, Bayly sought workers’ compensation benefits, which were denied by the carrier because Bayly was not considered an employee and had not paid for additional coverage for sole proprietors.  The board, agreeing with the carrier, found that, as a factual matter, Bayly never elected additional sole proprietor coverage.  Bayly appealed the board decision.  Contrary to the factual findings of the board, Judge Karsnitz concluded that they should have found that Bayly “orally” elected sole proprietor coverage.  He then reversed and entered judgment for Bayly.  The carrier appealed.

The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the decision because the Superior Court is not free to make its own factual findings contrary to those of the board when there is substantial evidence to support the board’s conclusions.  Here, the board explained why, based on the record, it concluded as a factual matter that Bayly did not elect sole proprietor coverage and that those findings are entitled to deference.  Unfortunately, while the board decision was eventually upheld, the litigants still had to bear the expense of extra litigation.