The Supreme Court of Delaware recently held that it was not error to exclude a worker’s testimony that she had searched for alternative employment and had not voluntarily removed herself from the workplace where it appeared that prior to trial the employer twice requested documentation supporting her job search, that she had failed to provide any such documentation, and that less than 48 hours prior to trial, the worker produced a "handwritten list of businesses,” without dates, names or contact information of any kind. Exclusion of the worker’s academic transcript—which the worker contended evidenced her intent to stay within the workplace—was also appropriate, held the court.
Reported by Thomas A. Robinson, J.D.
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to lexis.com.
See Martin v. Delaware Home and Hospital, 2013 Del. LEXIS 487 (Sept. 24, 2013) [2013 Del. LEXIS 487 (Sept. 24, 2013)]
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 84.04 [84.04]
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site