.

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

Superior Court affirms decision that claimant failed to prove she contracted COVID-19 at work, but does not reach issue of whether COVID-19 qualifies as an occupational disease for a nurse who worked in the “COVID wing” of a hospital.

Hudson v. Beebe Medical Center, S23A-10-002 NEP, 2024 WL 36063 (Del. Super. Jan. 3, 2024).

January 1, 2024

by Benjamin K. Durstein

Ms. Hudson worked as a front-line nurse for the employer on its COVID-19 floor in the Fall of 2020. She contracted COVID at some point in October 2020 and was hospitalized on October 21, 2020. Her sons contracted the virus at the same time. Tragically, one of them died of complications. The claimant alleged that she contracted COVID at work and subsequently infected her sons.

After a hearing, the Industrial Accident Board concluded that the claimant failed to meet her burden to prove COVID-19 was contracted at work and failed to prove that any alleged exposure qualified as an occupational disease for purposes of workers’ compensation under the specific circumstances of her employment. The Board accepted the causation/exposure opinion of the employer’s expert, Dr. Bacon, over the claimant’s expert, Dr. Eliasson, to reach its conclusion.

On appeal, Ms. Hudson argued that the Board applied an incorrect burden of proof, that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the exposure at work did qualify as a compensable occupational disease exposure in accordance with the Workers’ Compensation Act. The court held that the Board applied the correct burden of proof. It rejected Ms. Hudson’s claim that she was required to prove the exact moment when the exposure caused her to become ill. The Board decision and its acceptance of Dr. Bacon’s testimony was supported by substantial evidence, including the claimant’s conscientious use of proper protective equipment (PPE) at the hospital, that Dr. Eliasson was unaware of the claimant’s out-of-work activates, that Dr. Bacon’s testimony was more consistent with the initial treatment records, and that the claimant’s son most likely contracted COVID first due to the presentation of his symptoms prior to Ms. Hudson’s. Because the claimant failed to prove that COVID-19 was contracted at work, the court did not reach the question of whether the exposure under these circumstances qualified as an occupational disease under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
 


 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No. 1, January 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.