While Claimant's actions violate IAB Rule 9, the alleged impairment to the leg was later fairly presented to the Board at the hearing. Thus, the issue was raised below and had not been waived."); Wallace v. Mountaire Farms, Inc., 2002 WL 31558080, at *2 (Del. Super. Oct. 1, 2002) ("Here, Employer did not disclose the forfeiture issue in the pre-trial memorandum. Employer also failed to provide notice to opposing counsel of the forfeiture defense until two days prior to the hearing.

Ct. Civ. R. 72(g); 19 Del. C. § 2350(b). See Wallace v. Mountaire Farms, Inc., 2002 WL 31558080 at *2 (Del.Super.Ct.). The remaining argument concerns whether the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error.

Moreover, Section 541(c) merely requires that one party to the underlying proceeding file the appeal. By Kreston's own admission, Ms. Burton, an appellant, lives within one mile of the proposed package store and was a party to the proceeding below. See Wallace v. Mountaire Farms, 2002 Del. Super. LEXIS 375, at *4 ("The Court will not consider evidence or issues not properly raised below."). 8. Kreston also questions the validity of Sanjay Patel's ("Patel") standing to file an appeal. It is well-established that each person "protesting, who contested the issuance of the license at the Commission hearing, has the right to appeal."