Opinion
No. 06A-04-003 SCD.
Submitted: January 9, 2007.
Decided: January 23, 2007.
Appeal from a Decision on the Industrial Accident Board. AFFIRMED.
ORDER
This 23rd day of January, 2007, the appellant's opening brief and reply brief, filed pro se, and the answering brief of employer, having been considered, it appears:
1. That the appellant sought workers compensation benefits as a result of an injury which she said occurred on January 19, 2005. The matter was presented to the Industrial Accident Board ("Board") on January 3, 2006. Lear Corp. ("employer") disputed the occurrence of a work injury and contended that the appellant's low back injuries were related to a pre-existing condition. The Board found in favor of the employer.
2. The standard of review for an appeal of a decision from the Board is well-established. In an appeal from the Board, the function of the Superior Court "is to determine only whether or not there was substantial evidence to support the findings of the Board. If there was, [the] findings must be affirmed." Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. When reviewing appeals from the Board, the Superior Court is not the trier of fact and does not have authority to weigh evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses or make independent factual findings.
State v. Daltan, 878 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005).
General Motors Corp. v. Freeman, 164 A.2d 686, 689 (Del. 1960).
Histed v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co., 621 A.2d 340, 342 (Del. 1983).
Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965).
3. The appellant's arguments can be summarized as complaints about the manner in which her case was presented, and objections to certain factual findings which were contested.
4. The Board's decision contains an extensive recitation of facts which are supported by the record.
5. The claimant presented the testimony of Stephen N. Beneck, M.D., an expert in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Dr. Beneck began treating the appellant two months after the alleged industrial accident. He expressed the opinion that the appellant's disc herniation at L4-5 was due to the accident she reported as having occurred on January 19, 2005. It was developed at trial that Dr. Beneck was unaware of most of the appellant's prior medical history involving prior injury and prior low back treatment.
Stephen M. Beneck, M.D. was deposed on December 12, 2005. References to that testimony will be cited as "Beneck at __." Beneck at 13, 17.
6. The employer called Bruce Grossinger, D.O., a neurologist and pain management specialist. He testified that the appellant had a pre-existing history of degenerative joint disease at two levels of the lumbar spine which was documented in the medical records and supported by the MRI findings. He testified, based on her history and conduct, that he did not "think that any reasonable provider or nonmedical person could conclude with any degree of certainty that anything at all happened to her unusual on 1/19/05." He further testified that he could not distinguish the treatment the plaintiff received after the date of the alleged accident from the treatment provided before. The Board accepted the testimony of Dr. Grossinger.
Bruce Grossinger, D. O. was deposed on December 27, 2005. References to that testimony will be cited as "Grossinger at __." Grossinger at 26-27.
Grossinger at 27.
7. The Board is free to accept one expert's opinion over another, and this Court does not second-guess such credibility determinations.
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. The factual findings of the IAB are supported by substantial evidence. There are no errors of law.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Board is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.