Delaware Industrial Accident Board orders the claimant to respond to broad yet tailored requests for production.

Mohammed Ullah filed a petition with the Industrial Accident Board, alleging he was injured on July 22, 2024, while working for the employer as a school custodian. He sought total disability benefits as of July 22, 2024, and payment of medical bills. On his petition, no concurrent employment or business activity was disclosed. 

The employer served discovery requests on the claimant on October 7, 2024, noting that surveillance video obtained on four dates in August of 2024 showed the claimant appearing to work at Ammi’s Grocery and Halal Meat Store. The discovery requests specifically requested documentation regarding any work or service actually performed or service by the claimant for any kind of wage, together with documents showing the name and address of any employer/entity for whom the claimant provided any service for any form of wage from the work accident to date. 

When the claimant’s discovery response did not list Ammi’s Grocery, a subpoena was sent directly to Ammi’s Grocery, seeking similar information. The subpoena returned only four pages of business formation documents and a one-page payroll history, listing “Sadia Afroze” as having worked 1066.64 hours and being paid for same during the calendar year 2024. 

The claimant further responded that he was not employed by Ammi’s. Rather, he claimed he is the sole owner/partner, that Ms. Afroze is the only employee of the business and there is no pass-through income documented because the business was just formed. 

The employer filed a motion to compel, arguing that, whether the claimant labeled himself an employee or not, the surveillance showed him performing work for the business, rather than serving as a passive investor, and additional discovery was necessary to determine what exactly it is the claimant does for Ammi’s Grocery and how and in what amount he is compensated. 

In its December 19, 2024, order, the Industrial Accident Board agreed with the employer and granted the employer’s motion to compel. 

Following the issuance of that order, the claimant’s attorney sought to provide responses to the requests/subpoena, which included requests for:

• Confirmation of whether there are cameras inside or outside of the business, and if so, whether there is footage available between July 22, 2024—October 23, 2024; 
• The claimant’s personal bank account statements for the period July 22, 2024—October 23, 2024; 
• The claimant’s business bank account statements for the period July 22, 2024—October 23, 2024; 
• Copies of all product or service orders made on behalf of the business for the period July 22, 2024—October 23, 2024; 
• Copies of all product or service receipts for the period July 22, 2024—October 23, 2024.

The claimant’s attorney was unable to obtain from the claimant documents responsive to the foregoing requests, so he sought to withdraw as counsel for the claimant. By order dated January 29, 2025, that motion was granted.  

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 3, March 2025, 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 © 2025 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.}