IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
INGLESIDE HOMES, INC., ) 
) 
Appellant, ) 
) 
v. ) C. A. No. 02A-08-011-JEB 
) 
DAVID MAYERS, ) 
) 
Appellee. ) 
Submitted: March 10, 2003 
Decided: June 9, 2003 
Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. 
Decision Affirmed. 

OPINION 

Appearances: 
David Mayers, pro se, 4828 Misty Court, Wilmington, DE 19808. 
Appellee. 
Jill S. Di Sciullo, Esquire and David H. Williams, Esquire, Wilmington, 
Delaware. Attorneys for Appellant Ingleside Homes, Inc.. 
Stephani Ballard, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware. 
Attorney for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. 
JOHN E. BABIARZ, JR., JUDGE 

Ingleside Homes, Inc. v. David Mayers 
C.A. No. 02A-08-011-JEB 

This is the Court’s decision on Employer Ingleside Homes’ appeal of a decision 
of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (Board) granting benefits to Claimant 
David Mayers. For the reasons explained below, the Board’s decision is affirmed. 

FACTS 

Claimant worked as a nursing assistant at Ingleside Homes from December 
2000 through April 29, 2002. Claimant hurt his back at work on March 15 or 16, 
2002, and missed 15 days of work as a result. On March 25, 2002, Karen Peterson, 
Ingleside’s human resources director, sent Claimant a letter informing him that if he 
did not provide medical documentation for each missed day, he would be fired. 
Claimant had documentation from Christiana Care Occupational Health Services, but 
he did not provide exactly what Peterson requested. He was terminated on March 29, 
2002. 

Claimant filed for unemployment insurance benefits, and the Board granted his 
petition based on his medical records. Employer filed a timely appeal to this Court. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

In reviewing a decision of the Board, the Court’s role is to determine whether 
the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and are free from legal 
error. Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person might accept as 
adequate to support a conclusion. The Court does not weigh the evidence, determine 
questions of credibility or make factual findings. It merely determines if the 
evidence is legally adequate to support the Board’s findings.
 
DISCUSSION 

Other than the bare facts presented above, the parties dispute every relevant 
fact in this case. They disagree as to whether Peterson asked Claimant for additional 
documentation, whether she tried to reach him by phone at home, whether he attended 
physical therapy, whether he was able to work full duty or light duty, whether light 
duty was provided for him, and whether his supervisor was aware of the reason for 
his absences. 

However, the record shows that during the relevant time period Claimant 
provided four medical reports from Christiana Care Occupational Health Services 
stating first that Claimant was unable to work and later that he could work sedentary 
duty only. For this reason, the Board granted Claimant’s petition for unemployment 
benefits, finding that Claimant had not been terminated for just cause because he had 
not acted in wilful or wanton disregard for his employer’s interests or his employment 
duties.5 Based on the medical records, the Court finds that this conclusion is based 
on substantial evidence and is free from legal error. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons explained above, the Board’s decision granting unemployment 
benefits to David Mayers is Affirmed. 

It Is So ORDERED. 
Judge John E. Babiarz, Jr. 
JEB,jr/rmp/bjw 
Original to Prothonotary