---
title: Delete claim
summary: Removes all tasks associated with a claim, then deletes the claim header row itself under optimistic concurrency.
status: draft
owner: SAIF Doc Gen
last_reviewed: 2026-07-30
library: SAIF.Business.Claim.Entry
reference_type: package
operation_id: OP-CE-04
trigger: Caller marks a claim object for deletion and calls Save()
---

# Delete claim

Deleting a claim removes not only the `CL_INJURY_CLAIM` header row but also every `TASK` row tied to it, so that no orphaned task records remain once the claim itself is gone. The delete runs under the same optimistic-concurrency contract as an update.

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| **Operation ID** | OP-CE-04 |
| **Trigger** | `Save()` invoked on a claim object marked for deletion (`IsDeleted = True`) |
| **Inputs** | `ClaimID`, current `UpdateNum` |
| **Outputs** | Deleted `TASK` rows and `CL_INJURY_CLAIM` row, or an `UpdateError` broken rule on concurrency conflict |
| **Primary components** | `clsClaimEntry.BeforeDelete`, `clsClaimEntry.AfterDelete` |
| **Entry point** | `Business\SAIF.Business.Claim.Entry\clsClaimEntry.vb` |

## Steps

1. **Delete all tasks tied to the claim.** Before the claim header itself is removed, `BeforeDelete` issues a delete against `TASK` filtered by `ClaimID` ([TASK](../database-tables.md#task)).
2. **Bind and execute the header delete.** `BeforeDelete` then builds parameter bindings for `ClaimID` and `UpdateNum` and issues the delete against `CL_INJURY_CLAIM` ([SQL-027](../sql/SQL-027.md), [CL_INJURY_CLAIM](../database-tables.md#cl_injury_claim)).
3. **Enforce optimistic concurrency.** The delete's `WHERE` clause matches on both `ClaimID` and the caller-supplied `UpdateNum`; `AfterDelete` inspects the rows-affected return value ([BR-CE-011](../business-rules.md#br-ce-011-optimistic-concurrency-update-fails-if-rowsaffected-1)).
   - If `RowsAffected <> 1`: add an `UpdateError` broken rule indicating the row was changed or deleted by another user since it was last retrieved.
   - If `RowsAffected = 1`: the deletion is considered successful.
4. **Return control to the caller** with either a successfully deleted object or the broken-rule collection populated with the concurrency-conflict error.

## Process flow

```mermaid
flowchart TD
	Start([Save called on claim<br>marked for deletion]) --> DeleteTasks[Delete all TASK rows<br>for ClaimID]
	DeleteTasks --> DeleteHeader[Delete CL_INJURY_CLAIM<br>WHERE ClaimID and UpdateNum]
	DeleteHeader --> Rows{RowsAffected = 1?}
	Rows -->|No| Conflict([Raise UpdateError<br>broken rule])
	Rows -->|Yes| Return([Return successfully<br>deleted claim])
```

## Failure and edge-case behavior

- A concurrent update or delete by another session between retrieval and this delete produces a rows-affected value of `0`, surfaced as an `UpdateError` broken rule rather than a silent no-op ([BR-CE-011](../business-rules.md#br-ce-011-optimistic-concurrency-update-fails-if-rowsaffected-1)).
- Task deletion (step 1) and header deletion (step 2) run inside the same data-portal transaction; if the header delete fails the concurrency check, the transaction is expected to roll back the task deletion as well, though no explicit compensating logic was found in `clsClaimEntry` itself.*
- No cascade to other child tables (e.g., Online 801 submissions, pharmacy eligibility, work-release status) was found in `BeforeDelete`; deleting a claim that still has such child rows may be blocked by database foreign-key constraints rather than by application logic.*

## Related documentation

- [Operations and processes](../operations-processes.md)
- [Business rules](../business-rules.md)
- [SQL catalog](../sql/index.md)
- [Database tables](../database-tables.md)

> **Note:** Statements marked with `*` were inferred from code structure, naming
> conventions, or contextual evidence where direct confirmation was not available
> in source artifacts.

## Sources

- `Business\SAIF.Business.Claim.Entry\clsClaimEntry.vb`