that the two primary purposes of the Workers’ Compensation law are to provide prompt payment of benefits without regard to fault and to relieve employers and employees of the burden of civil litigation. Champlain Cable Corp. v. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., Del.Supr., 479 A.2d 835, 840 (1984). By adopting the Workers’ Compensation law, the General Assembly was necessarily required to balance the policy considerations of such legislation. The General Assembly achieved the appropriate balance by adopting a Workers' Compensation law which eliminates questions of fault in industrial accidents and substitutes a reasonable scale of compensation for the common-law remedies. Hill v. Moskin Stores, Inc., 165 A.2d at 451; see Kofron v. Amoco Chems. Corp., Del. Supr., 441 A.2d 226, 231 (1982) (<HOLDING>); see also id. ("While legislatures in other
holding that once the workers compensation act provides a remedy it is exclusive and the employee has no right to bring an action in commonlaw negligence against his employer holding a section 44034 fee award to be within the coverage of the employers workers compensation insurance policy holding that a claim did not arise under a workers compensation law when it stated a right to relief in tort and sought common law damages distinct from statutory compensation scheme holding that all employee actions against employers for workrelated injuries based on any degree of negligence are within exclusive coverage of workers compensation law and may not be maintained under common law holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim