Namely, he testified that spasms "could go either way," meaning they could be either an objective or subjective finding.See Parisi v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2010 WL 4139289, at *1 (Del. Super. Oct. 18, 2010) (recognizing, that based upon a doctor's testimony, muscle spasms qualify as "objective findings beyond the control of a patient," which in turn supported a new trial in an uncontested liability, zero-dollar verdict case). Ct. Ex. 1, at 19.
See Amisial v. Scott, 2018 WL 3409915, at *2 (Del. Super. July 12, 2018) (explaining that Delaware case law repeatedly references an "inexorably intertwined" standard for determining whether part or all of the previously tried issues should be retried); Parisi v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 WL 4139289, at *2 (Del. Super. Oct. 18, 2010) (requiring both the derivative and primary claims of a case to be retried); Smith v. Lawson, 2006 WL 258310, at *8 (Del. Super. Jan. 23, 2006) (granting a new trial only as to damages where there was no showing that liability was "inexorably intertwined" with damages).