His own ER visit told a different story than his injury claim
A Delaware worker who blamed his bad back on the job lost his appeal for workers' compensation after the board doubted his account.
On August 10, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a decision denying a worker's petition for workers' compensation, agreeing that he had not proven his back injury arose from his job. For HR teams, it is a clean lesson in how injury reporting, medical records, and credibility can decide a claim.
The worker had operated a forklift and mixed mortar for The Borsello Companies since 2020. He said that on February 19, 2024, he hurt his back after lifting and emptying more than 100 buckets of water to mix mortar. He told the Industrial Accident Board he reported the injury that day to coworkers, including a foreman. The foreman denied that any injury was reported to him.
The paper trail worked against him. He did not raise back trouble with the company until a February 29 text to a project manager, saying the work was "screwing my back up." He never followed up with the company president as instructed. He kept working as normal until mid-March, when the company fired him for insubordination after he showed up on a day off and refused to leave.
The medical timing hurt him too. He did not seek treatment until March 21, when he told emergency room staff his pain had lasted "over a year" and denied any recent trauma. A neurosurgeon later linked his condition to the February work day and recommended surgery. The employer's expert, an orthopedic spine surgeon, disagreed, finding no evidence of an acute injury that day.
Because the neurosurgeon's opinion on cause rested on the worker's own account, the board found it less persuasive and denied the claim. The Superior Court affirmed, and so did the Supreme Court, which noted the board holds "the exclusive responsibility" for weighing evidence and judging credibility.
The worker also argued on appeal that his former attorney was inadequate, that company witnesses "committed perjury and fabricated exhibits," and that employees "made racist comments." The court did not resolve those claims. It said the malpractice issue belonged in a separate lawsuit, found no abuse of discretion in how the evidence was handled, and declined to consider the misconduct claims because he had not raised them with the board first.
For HR, the takeaway is documentation. Contemporaneous injury reports, consistent medical histories, and clear termination records shaped this outcome - and they usually do.
