Harris v. DaimlerChrysler

Full title: MAJOR HARRIS, Claimant Below-Appellant, v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER, Employer…

Court: Superior Court of Delaware for New Castle County

Date published: Nov 21, 2005

C.A. No. 05A-04-005 SCD (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 21, 2005)

Opinion

C.A. No. 05A-04-005 SCD.

Submitted: September 16, 2005.

Decided: November 21, 2005.

ORDER

Susan C. Del Pesco, Judge.

This 21st of November 2005, the briefs of the parties addressing the claimant's appeal having been duly considered, it appears that:

1. Major Harris ("Harris") claims to have sustained a compensable injury at work on January 24, 2003, with additional injury occurring on January 28, 2003.

2. The parties stipulated that the matter would be presented to a hearing officer pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 2301B (a)(4). The hearing officer wrote an extremely detailed recitation of the facts presented, the applicable law, and the factual findings made based on the evidence.

3. The hearing officer concluded that the claimant had not met his burden of proving that an industrial accident occurred on January 24, 2003, or on January 28, 2003.

4. The findings of the hearing officer have "the same authority as a decision of the Board and [are] subject to judicial review on the same basis as a decision of the Board."¹ A decision of the Industrial Accident Board is reviewed to determine whether there is substantial evidence on the record before the agency to support the findings.²

1 19 Del. C. § 2301B(a)(4).

2 29 Del. C. § 10142(d).

5. The issues in the case were purely factual. Claimant testified that he had experienced right shoulder pain and a period of disability, as a result of a January 2003 malfunction of a piece of machinery. He denied prior right shoulder pain. Evidence was presented to show that there were numerous inconsistencies between the claimant's testimony and other evidence, most significantly, inconsistency with medical records which recorded complaints of right shoulder problems before the alleged accident in January 2003.

5. The hearing officer found the recitation of facts from the claimant not to be credible. That determination is within the discretion of the hearing officer as fact finder.³

3 "[t]he credibility of the witnesses, the weight of their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom are for the Board to determine." Clements v. Diamond State Port Corp., 831 A.2d 870, 878 (Del. 2003) (quoting Coleman v. Dept. of Labor, 288 A.2d 285, 287 (Del.Super.Ct. 1972)).

6. There is no dispute as to issues of law.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the hearing officer is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.