Opinion
C.A. No. N19A-12-001 ALR
12-11-2020
WAYNE FORAKER, Claimant Below - Appellant, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Employer Below - Appellee.
Upon Motion for Reargument/Clarification
DENIED ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a motion for reargument/clarification submitted by Amazon.com, Inc. and opposed by Wayne Foraker. By Memorandum Opinion and Order issued November 5, 2020, this Court reversed the decision of the Industrial Accident Board and remanded the matter for proceedings consistent with this Court's opinion. Specifically, this Court ruled that the IAB committed legal error in its denial of additional workers' compensation from September 19, 2018; and that the record did not include substantial evidence to support the IAB's findings of fact that Foraker's Amazon injury had completely resolved as of April 24, 2019 and that any injury Foraker continued to suffer was due to a prior injury.
A motion for reargument under Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) permits the Court to reconsider "its findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment." A motion for reargument is not a device for raising new arguments or rehashing arguments already decided by the Court. The party seeking relief pursuant to Rule 59 has a heavy burden. Indeed, to prevail on a motion for reargument, the moving party must demonstrate that "the Court has overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles, or the Court has misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision."
Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del. 1969); Miller v. New Castle Cty., 2016 WL 270531, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 21, 2016).
Miller, 2016 WL 270531, at *1.
Kostyshyn v. Comm'rs of Town of Bellefonte, 2007 WL 1241875, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr. 27, 2007).
Lamourine v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 2007 WL 3379048, at *1 (Del. Super. Sept. 24, 2007). --------
Amazon has not asserted that the Court overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principle or misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision. Accordingly, the standard for reargument has not been met. This Court's November 5, 2020 ruling directed the Board identified the correct legal standard and instructed the Board to apply that standard. In addition, the Court found that substantial evidence did not exist in the record to deny benefits for the workplace injury. There should not be any confusion or need for clarification.
Now, THEREFORE, Amazon's Motion for Reargument/Clarification is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of December, 2020.
Andrea L. Rocanelli
The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli