Opinion
C.A. No. 99A-04-001 RRC.
Submitted: April 4, 2000.
Decided: May 23, 2000.
On Employee's Motion For Reargument. DENIED.
ORDER
This 23rd day of May, 2000, upon consideration of Employee's Motion For Reargument pursuant to Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59, it appears to this Court that:
1. Margaret Brenner (Employee) moves for reargument pursuant to this Court's decision affirming a March 15, 1999 decision of the Industrial Accident Board (Board). For the reasons stated below, Employee's motion is DENIED.
2. This motion for reargument arises from a compensable work injury sustained by Employee when she slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of Village Green, Inc. (Employer). As a result, Employee had been awarded compensation by the Board for injury to the left lower extremity and the low back. Subsequently, Employee sought and had received from the Board additional compensation for a limp. Employee then appealed that latest decision of the Board because no compensation had been awarded for a scar. This Court affirmed the decision of the Board which awarded compensation for the limp and not the scar because the decision had been based on substantial evidence in the record. Furthermore, this Court stated in its decision that Employee elected not to show the Board her scar and had indicated that she decided not to wear a skirt that would have allowed the Board examination of the scar . . . [i]f Employee had intended for the scar to be considered by the Board as part of the disfigurement, she had ample opportunity to present that evidence. From that decision, Employee now moves for reargument.
Brenner v. Village Green, Inc., Del. Super., C.A No. 99A-04-001, Cooch, J. (Mar. 3, 2000) (Letter Opinion) at 7.
3. Employee asserts that she is now "unsure as to what, if any, issues remain for the Industrial Accident Board to consider regarding the Employee's disfigurement in terms of the worsening of her condition." Employee asks this Court to "clarify its decision so that [Employee] knows how to proceed. . . ."
Appellant's Motion For Reargument at 1.
Id. at 2
4. Employer contends that Employee has "waived all rights she had concerning the scar from her original injury" because Employee made the choice to not exhibit the scar at the Board hearing.
Employer's Response to Motion For Reargument at 2.
5. On a motion for reargument the only issue is whether the Court overlooked something that would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision. A motion for reargument is not intended to rehash the arguments already decided by the Court. A party seeking to have the Court reconsider the earlier ruling must demonstrate newly discovered evidence, a change in the law, or manifest injustice.
McElroy v. Shell Petroleum, Inc., Del. Supr., No. 375, 1992, Moore, J. (Nov. 24, 1992) (ORDER) at 3-4.
E. I. duPont de Nemours Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co., Del. Super., 711 A.2d 45, 55 (1995).
6. Employee waived all rights to collect benefits from the scar caused by her injury. This Court finds that the its prior ruling of March 3, 2000 is sufficiently clear in that it stated that the Board's decision on Employee's disfigurement was based on the "limp, not the limp and scar." Additionally, there has been nothing overlooked, no newly discovered evidence, no change in the law, or manifest injustice. Regarding Employee's inquiry as to "what, if any, issues remain," this Court cannot make that determination. However, any compensation sought by Employee based on the scar has been waived.
Brenner at 5.
7. For the reasons stated, Employee's Motion for Reargument is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.