IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
CLAUDETTE BELL, ) 
) 
Appellant, ) 
) 
v. ) C. A. No. 02A-10-002-JEB 
) 
CHRISTIANA CARE, ) 
) 
Appellee. ) 
Submitted: February 26, 2003 
Decided: April 10, 2003 
Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. 
Decision Affirmed. 

OPINION 

Appearances: 
Claudette Bell, pro se, 1338 N. French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. 
Appellant. 
David H. Williams, Esquire, and Jennifer L. Brierley, Esquire, Wilmington, 
Delaware. Attorneys for Appellee Christiana Care. 
JOHN E. BABIARZ, JR., JUDGE 

This is the Court’s decision on Claimant Claudette Bell’s appeal of a decision 
of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board") denying her petition for 
unemployment benefits. For the reasons explained below, Claimant’s appeal is 
denied and the Board’s decision is affirmed. 

FACTS 

Claimant was employed as a cafeteria service assistant for Christiana Care 
("Employer") from July 1997 through April 2002. She worked in the Wilmington 
Hospital, and her duties included working at the food line, preparing and serving food 
to patients and other customers, cleaning, taking out the trash, filling in as a cashier 
and lifting steam wells to store food in hot water. She also lifted, carried and pushed 
large containers of food, and spent much time walking and standing. 

In April 2002, Claimant hurt her back at work while lifting a pail of water. She 
went to her doctor, Barry Bakst, D.O., who issued four notes between April and 
September 2002 restricting Claimant to light duty, and precluding her from repetitive 
twisting and lifting anything over 15 pounds. Because Employer had no full-time, 
light duty positions that met Claimant’s restrictions, she was granted unpaid leave 
under the Family Medical Leave Act until it expired on September 26, 2002. 

In June 2002, when Claimant realized that there were no light duty jobs 
available for her, she applied to the Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment, 
for unemployment benefits. The fact finder at each level of the Division’s three-tier 
system found that Claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because of her 
inability to work, pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 3315(8). 

DISCUSSION 

On appeal, Claimant challenges the denial of her petition because she was 
released to light duty work as of June 18, 2002, and Employer failed to offer her a 
light duty position. Employer argues that Claimant was disqualified from receiving 
benefits because she was unable to do her work and that no full-time positions within 
Claimant’s restrictions were available. If the decision is supported by substantial 
evidence and is free from legal error, this Court must affirm.1 

Delaware unemployment law regarding the ability to work is clear. A person 
is disqualified from receiving benefits if her unemployment is "due to the individual’s 
inability to work."2 She is eligible only if she is able and available to work and is 
actively seeking work.3 If an individual leaves her job because of an inability to 
work, she may become eligible to receive benefits only if she presents a "doctor’s 
certificate" stating that she is released to work.4 

In this case, Dr. Bakst’s final note, dated September 9, 2002, stated that 
Claimant could return to work as long as she lifted nothing over 15 pounds and 
avoided repetitive twisting, bending and crawling.5 This note cannot be construed as 
releasing Claimant to work at her previous position. The job description for a 
cafeteria food assistant required the employee to "lift, pull, push, reach, twist, stand, 
raise, and lower to accommodate food service demands on a continuous basis.6 The 
Court finds that the Board was entitled to rely on Dr. Bakst’s note in determining that 
Claimant was not able to work, as of September 11, 2002, the day of the hearing. The 
record also shows that Employer’s witness testified before the Appeals referee that 
there were no full-time positions available that met Claimant’s restrictions. The 
Court concludes that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s 
findings and that the decision if free from legal error.7 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons explained above, the decision of the Board denying Claudette 
Bell’s petition for unemployment benefits is affirmed. 

It Is So ORDERED. 

Judge John E. Babiarz, Jr. 
JEB,jr/bjw/rmp 
Original to Prothonotary