Action Delayed Is a Continuance Denied In Delaware

Today’s cautionary tale comes from my partner Natalie Wolf who sent me a copy of Andres Urdaneta v. Trader Joes, IAB# 1419092 (3/10/15)(ORDER). The matter came to the Board on an opposed request for a continuance being advanced by the employer.  And basically here is the rule of law I take from this ruling:

Asleep at the wheel is not a basis for a continuance under IAB Rule 12B.

A few facts:  the DCD was noticed in October 2014.  There was arguably an issue with the employer not having notified the carrier of the claim.  A request for a recorded statement from the claimant was conveyed by the carrier in October 2014.  However, defense counsel was not assigned nor was a DME arranged until January 2015.  And when the DME was noticed, it was for the claimant to submit for evaluation by a partner of the treating doctor.  Thus, a conflict exists and we are back to square one.

Outcome:  After the continuance was denied, the claim was picked up (don’t you just love it when that happens?).

Worth noting if you have a client who is slow on the draw in addressing Petitions.

Irreverently yours,

Visit Delaware Detour & Frolic, a law blog by Cassandra Roberts

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site