The Board's decision was affirmed by this Court and the Delaware Supreme Court. While it is clear that the employee preferred the chiropractic treatment to the home remedies, under the statute it was not reasonable to expect the employer to pay for the treatment when less expensive remedies provided the same level of relief. Indeed, in this case, the result of the exercise of the Appellant's "preference" is not just neutral, but detrimental. It is, similarly, not reasonable for the employer to be required to pay in this case. Hernandez v. Boston Market Inc., 2005 WL 1653716 (Del. 2005).Id.
See 19 Del. C. § 2322(a) ("During the period of disability the employer shall furnish reasonable . . . medical . . . services . . . as and when needed"). See also Hernandez v. Boston Market, Inc., 878 A.2d 461, at *1-2 (Del. 2005) (holding that substantial evidence existed to support the Board's finding that employee's medical expenses were not reasonable, necessary, and related to the work injury); Clark v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3095949, at *1 (Del.Super.Ct. Oct. 30, 2006) (noting that injured worker's burden before the Board was to show that his medical expenses "were reasonable, necessary, and related to the accident.").General Motors v. Veasey, 371 A.2d 1074, 1076 (Del. 1977).
DiSabatino Bros., Inc. v. Wortman, 453 A.2d 102, 106 (Del. 1982) (citing General Motors v. Veasey, 371 A.2d 1074, 1076 (Del. 1977)).Hernandez v. Boston Market, Inc., 878 A.2d 461 (Del. 2005). 7. The claimant did not meet her burden of proving that "but for" the accident on July 21, 2005 she would not have required the surgery.
DiSabatino Bros., Inc. v. Wortman, 453 A.2d 102, 106 (Del. 1982) (citing General Motors v. Veasey, 371 A.2d 1074, 1076 (Del. 1977)).Hernandez v. Boston Market, Inc., 878 A.2d 461 (Del. 2005). 8.