Johnson, 213 A.2d at 66 (“Although our Courts have expressed it in various ways, we think the sole function of the Superior Court, as is the function of this Court on appeal, is to determine whether or not there was substantial competent evidence to support the finding of the Board, and, if it finds such in the record, to affirm the findings of the Board.”). See Williams v. Auto Zone, 2013 WL 6662859, at *4 (Del.Super. Dec. 16, 2013) (“[T]he Court must show deference toward the Board's fact-finding and its application of those facts to the appropriate legal standards.”). In Optima Cleaning Systems, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., the Superior Court addressed a UIAB appeal with facts very similar to the case at bar.

See Vick v. Haller, Del. Supr., No. 149, 1986 Christi, C.J. (March 2, 1987) (ORDER) "A pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, may be held to a somewhat less stringent technical standard that formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."; see also Williams v. Auto Zone, 2013 WL 6662859, at *5 (Super. Dec. 16, 2013), citing Browns v. Saunders, 2001 WL 138497, at *1 (Del. Feb. 14, 2001) ("As a general rule, we interpret pleading requirements liberally where the plaintiff appears pro se.").