Opinion
C.A. No. 99A-08-007.
Submitted: October 28, 1999.
Decided: March 10, 2000.
On Appellee's Motion to Affirm: Granted.
Carmita M. Hall, Wilmington, DE, Appellant Pro Se.
Danielle K. Yearick, Esquire, Tybout, Redfearn Pell, Wilmington, DE, Attorney for the Appellee.
OPINION AND ORDER
The matter before the Court concerns an appeal by Carmita M. Hall ("Claimant") of the July 20, 1999 decision of the Industrial Accident Board denying her petition for compensation as a result of injuries to here left leg and lumbar spine.
FACTS
The Claimant was employed as a classroom aide the for Brandywine School District on January 8, 1990, when she injured her left ankle and hip as she slipped on a patch of ice outside of the A. I. DuPont Institute. In April, 1992, the parties agreed that the Claimant had suffered a seventeen and one-half percent (17.5%) to her left leg and a ten percent (10%) permanent injury to her lumbar. As a result, the Claimant received benefits totaling $15,838.55. Employer's Mot. at Ex. D.
On February 4, 1999 Claimant filed a "Petition to Determine Additional Compensation Due" which sought compensation for a seventeen percent (17%) disability of the lower back based upon a rupture of the L4-L5 disk and injury to her leg. Id. at Ex. B. The Board held a hearing in response to that petition on July 15, 1999. Following that hearing, the board determined that the issue had been previously addressed and resolved. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. Bd. Dec. at 2.
The Claimant filed an appeal with this Court on August 16, 1999, alleging that the Board committed three errors. Specifically, she alleges that the Board erred when it dismissed her claim for permanent impairment and in failing to consider her claim for total disability benefits. She also alleges that the Board erred in refusing to allow her son to assist her at the hearing before the Board on July 15.
The Employer filed a motion to affirm the Board's decision on October 15, 1999 pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 72.1(b). Employer alleges that it is manifest on the face of Appellant/Claimant's Opening Brief that the appeal is without merit, as a matter of law. That which follows is the Court's resolution of the issues so presented.
DISCUSSION
A motion to affirm may be granted if:
[I]t is manifest on the face of the appellant's brief that the appeal is without merit because:
(1) The issue on appeal is clearly controlled by settled Delaware law;
. . .
(3) The issue on appeal from a commission or board is factual, and clearly there is substantial, competent evidence of record to support the findings of fact below;
. . .
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 72.1(b). Review is limited to determining whether there is substantial, competent evidence of record to support the Board's decision, and whether it is free from legal error. Stoltz Management Co. v. Consumer Affairs Bd., Del. Supr., 616 A.2d 1205, 1208 (1992); and 29 Del. C. § 10142 (d).
The Claimant contends that the Board erred when it would not allow her son to participate in the July 15 hearing. She states that the Board's policy that only attorneys are permitted to assist or participate in presenting a claim before the Board, is irrational and against public interest. During the Board's hearing on July 15, 1999, Claimant's son Ozzie Hall requested the Board allow him to participate in the proceedings. Her son stated that he was not an attorney, which he felt was irrelevant because he was a close family member. Hr'g Trans. at 3. The Board allowed him to be present during the proceedings, but stated that any participation is "not permissible under Board rules or the rules of any court in this State." Id.
It is settled Delaware law that the Industrial Accident Board will not permit an individual who is not an attorney to present claims on behalf of claimants because such action constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. The legislature in the State of Delaware has no authority to grant a non-attorney the right to practice law even if limited to practice before an administrative agency.Marshall-Steele v. Nanticoke Memorial Hospital, Inc., Del. Super., C.A. No. 98A-10-001, Graves, J. (June 18, 1999) at 5. Consequently, given the status of the law in this regard, the Board's decision was based on well established Delaware law and will not be disturbed.
In so far as her claim for permanent impairment is concerned, the Claimant alleges that the medical records submitted established her entitlement to compensation. However, the Claimant's pretrial memorandum alleged a seventeen percent (17%) permanent impairment of her ankle and an unspecified degree of impairment for the back. At the hearing, the Board received as evidence a copy of the receipt of compensation paid to the Claimant as a result of the seventeen and one-half percent (17.5%) impairment of her ankle and the ten percent (10%) impairment of her back. That receipt was dated April 16, 1992.
Based on that evidence, the Board found that the Claimant's petition was moot in that she had already received the compensation due her. Stated differently, the Board found that the Claimant had already presented a claim and had been paid for the same injuries in 1992 that she was attempting to recover on in 1999. The Court agrees and finds that the record contains substantial and competent evidence in support of this conclusion.
The Claimant's final contention must suffer a similar fate. During the July 15 hearing, the Claimant indicated for the first time that she was seeking total disability benefits. There was no indication that this was an issue to be addressed by the Board. As a result, the Board declined to hear that claim. Linda Wilson, Esquire, the attorney for the Board, informed her that she:
. . . probably should have talked to a lawyer because this employer didn't have an opportunity to prepare for what you're seeking today, and the Board can't hear it. It's not fair to the employer.
Bd. Dec. at 12.
Rule 9(g) of the Industrial Accident Board Rules requires that a claimant file a complete statement of what he or she "seeks and alleges." Because she did not do so, the Board was therefore correct as a matter of law and/or did not abuse its discretion in refusing to address the issue. No other conclusion is viable on the record in this case.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court must conclude that the decision of the Industrial Accident Board must be upheld. The issues are clearly controlled by settled Delaware law and there is substantial evidence to support the findings of fact made by the Board. The Employer's motion is therefore granted and the decision of the Industrial Accident Board is hereby affirmed pursuant to Rule 72.1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.