Instead, where the Board appropriately adopts one expert opinion over another, as it did here, the opinion the Board adopts qualifies as substantial evidence.Turbitt v. Blue Hen Lines, Inc., 711 A.2d 1214, 1215 (Del. 1998); Noel- Liszkiewicz v. La-Z-Boy, Inc., 2012 WL 4762114, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 3, 2012) ("In a battle of experts, the Board is ordinarily free to favor one expert's testimony."), aff'd, 68 A.3d 138; see also 29 Del. C. § 10142(d) (2020) ("The Court . . . shall take due account of the experience and specialized competence of the agency . . . .").

Clements v. Diamond State Port Corp., 831 A.2d 870, 877 (Del. 2003).Noel-Liszkiewicz v. La-Z-Boy, Inc., 2012 WL 4762114, at *5 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 3, 2012). A15-16.

This Court cannot and will not disturb that finding. See, e.g. Noel-Liszkiewicz v. La-Z-Boy, Inc., 2012 WL 4762114, at *4 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2012). 10. Turning to Claimant's argument that the IAB failed to apply the but-for standard of causation to Claimant's claim for benefits, the IAB explicitly found, and Claimant acknowledged, that Claimant had been involved in two accidents after his fourth back surgery and prior to his fifth-one, where he fell after he was attacked by a dog and sustained increased pain in his back as a result, and another, where he was run over by a vehicle and sustained injuries to his leg.

Having reviewed the record, the Court concludes that there was no legal error in crediting defendant's expert's opinion and the IAB's decision was supported by substantial evidence. See Noel-Liszkiewicz v. La-Z-Boy, Inc., 2012 WL 4762114, at *4 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2012) ("In a battle of experts, the Board is ordinarily free to favor one's expert testimony."); See also DiSabatino Bros. Inc. v. Wortman, 453 A.2d 102, 106 (Del. 1982).See Kochis v. Connections, CSP, 2021 WL 1712436, at *2 (Del.

Having reviewed the record, the Court concludes that there was no legal error in crediting defendant's expert's opinion and the IAB's decision was supported by substantial evidence. See Noel-Liszkiewicz v. La-Z-Boy, Inc., 2012 WL 4762114, at *4 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2012) ("In a battle of experts, the Board is ordinarily free to favor one's expert testimony."); See also DiSabatino Bros. Inc. v. Wortman, 453 A.2d 102, 106 (Del. 1982).See Kochis v. Connections, CSP, 2021 WL 1712436, at *2 (Del.

Therefore, the Court finds that the IAB's acceptance of Dr. Kates' testimony, even with the slight definition inconsistency, constitutes substantial evidence to sustain its finding. See Noel-Liszkiewicz v. La-Z-Boy, Inc., 2012 WL 4762114, at *4 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2012) ("In a battle of experts, the Board is ordinarily free to favor one's expert testimony."); Glanden, 918 A.2d at 1103 ("It is well settled that IAB is free to choose between conflicting medical testimony, and that the expert testimony which is relied upon will constitute substantial evidence for purposes of appeal."); Romine v. Conectiv Communications, Inc., 2003 WL 21001030, at *4 (Del. Super.

20, 2005) (citing Breeding v. Contractors-One-Inc., 549 A.2d 1102, 1104 (Del. 1988). Noel-Liszkiewicz v. La-Z-Boy, Inc., 2012 WL 4762114, *5 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2012), aff'd, 2013 WL 519603 (Del. Feb. 12, 2013) (citing Clements v. Diamond State Port Corp., 831 A.2d 870, 877 (Del. 2003)). Cottman v. Burris Fence Constr., 2006 WL 3742580, *4 (Del. Dec. 19, 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Id. at 605 (citations omitted). Noel-Liszkiewicz v. La-Z-Boy, Inc., 2012 WL 4762114 at *4 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2012) (citing Kreshtool v. Delmarva Power and Light Co., 310 A.2d 649, 653 (Del. 1973)), aff'd , 2013 WL 519603 (Del. 2013). Sewell v. Delaware River and Bay Authority, 796 A.2d 665, 660 (Del. Super. 2000).

As long as substantial evidence supports the Board's determination, the Board may "accord more weight to a non-treating expert over a conflicting treating expert." Noel-Liszkiewicz v. La-Z-Boy, Inc., 2012 WL 4762114, *5 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2012), aff'd, 2013 WL 519603 (Del. Feb. 12, 2013). Id. (citing Diamond Fuel Oil v. O'Neal, 734 A.2d 1060, (Del. 1999); Valmont Structures v. Mode, 2010 WL 4188303 (Del. Super. Oct. 8, 2010); Diocese of Wilm. v. Williams, 2009 WL 989175 (Del. Super. Apr. 13, 2009).

Person-Gaines v. Pepco Holdings, Inc., 981 A.2d 1159, 1161 (Del. 2009). Noel-Liszkiewicz v. LA-Z-BOY, Inc., 2012 WL 4762114, at *8 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 3, 2012). Id. (citing Johnson, 213 A.2d at 66).