Opinion
C.A. No. 00A-03-009 JEB.
Submitted: June 30, 2000.
Decided: October 31, 2000.
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD IAB NO.: 1146934.
Motion to Affirm Decision of Industrial Accident Board — GRANTED
Appearances:
Attorney for Employee Below-Appellant. Elwood T. Eveland, Jr., Esquire 824 Market Street Mall, Suite 830 P.O. Box 393 Wilmington, DE 19899-0393.
Attorney for Employer Below-Appellee. Robert H. Richter, Esquire 919 North Market Street 1300 Mellon Bank Center Wilmington, DE 19801.
ORDER
Appellant-Employee Edward Wyant appeals a decision of the Industrial Accident Board ("the Board") relating to the Board's denial of compensation for an injury that he sustained at work. The Appellee-Employer, L.F. Systems, has moved to affirm the Board's decision. Because it is manifest on the face of the Appellant's brief that there is substantial evidence to support the Board's findings, and the Board's findings are free from errors of law, the Motion to Affirm is GRANTED.
I. FACTS
On July 9, 1997 Edward Wyant injured his knee while lifting a granite counter top as part of his duties as a foreman for L.F. Systems. Mr. Wyant reported the injury to his supervisor the next day. From July 1997 to November 1998, Mr. Wyant's knee hurt intermittently, but he did not miss work. During this time period, Mr. Wyant did not seek medical attention for his injury, and did not complain of knee pain during three physicals with Dr. Wilson, his family physician. He periodically self-administered a pain medication that was prescribed to him for a previous shoulder injury.
In November 1998, Mr. Wyant sought treatment with Dr. Wilson for his increasing knee pain. In January 1999, he saw Dr. Leo Raisis, and in June 1999, Dr. Raisis performed arthroscopy surgery on Mr. Wyant's knee. Mr. Wyant was taken out of work until August 16, 1999, when he was released to light work duty. On September 13, 1999, Mr. Wyant returned to full work duty.
Dr. Raisis testified that the arthroscopy could not establish what caused the knee injury. Dr. Raisis concluded as to causation that "[i]t appeared to be related to the onset of the injury to his left knee that he described approximately two years prior and continually aggravated by his requirements of using his left knee at work."
Dr. Errol Ger testified by deposition that Mr. Wyant's knee surgery and subsequent period of disability were not related to his July 9, 1997 work injury, based on the fact that Mr. Wyant sought no treatment for almost eighteen months and did not mention his pain to his family doctor. Dr. Ger opined that Mr. Wyant injured his knee while engaging in his weight lifting activities outside of work.
The Board determined that Mr. Wyant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his surgery and period of disability were causally linked to his work-related knee injury. The Board found Dr. Raisis's testimony relating the surgery to the work accident equivocal. The Board was also swayed by Mr. Wyant's failure to report his injury despite the fact that he was seen multiple times by his family doctor for periodic physicals.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
On appeal from the decision of the Board, the function of a reviewing court is to determine whether the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence. "Substantial evidence" is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and less than a preponderance. The appellate court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings. The Court's review of alleged errors of law by the Board is plenary.
29 Del. C. § 10142 (d); General Motors Corp. v. Freeman, Del. Supr., 164 A.2d 686, 688 (1960); Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., Del. Supr., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (1965).
Oceanport Indus., Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores. Inc., Del. Supr., 636 A.2d 892, 899 (1994) (quoting Olney v. Cooch, Del. Supr., 425 A.2d 610, 614 (1981)).
Olney at 614.
Johnson, 213 A.2d at 66.
Brooks v. Johnson, Del. Supr., 506 A.2d 1001, 1002 (1989) (citingNardo v. Nardo, Del. Supr., 209 A.2d 905 (1965)).
Superior Court Civil Rule 72.1(b) provides the standard by which a motion to Affirm must be judged:
The sole ground for such motion shall be that it is manifest on the face of appellant's brief that the appeal is without merit because:
(1) The issue on appeal is clearly controlled by settled Delaware law;
. . . .
(3) The issue on appeal from a commission or board is factual, and clearly there is substantial evidence to support the findings of fact below; or
(4) The issue on appeal is one of judicial or administrative discretion, and clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
Superior Court Civil Rule 72.1(b).
III. DISCUSSION
Mr. Wyant argues that the Board lacked substantial competent evidence and that the Board's findings of fact were not the product of an orderly and logical deductive reasoning process.
In response, L.F. Systems filed a Motion to Affirm the decision of the Board, pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 72.1(b), on the grounds that it is manifest on the face of Mr. Wyant's opening brief that the appeal is without merit because the issues on appeal are factual and there is substantial evidence to support the Board's findings of fact.
The record of the Board indicates that their decision was supported by substantial evidence. The Board considered the testimonies of Dr. Raisis and Dr. Ger, believed Dr. Raisis's testimony to be ambiguous, and was influenced by the fact that Mr. Wyant sought no medical treatment nor mentioned his pain to his doctor for over a year.
In light of the Board's expertise and experience which the Court must take into account, the Board was free to reject or regard the conclusion of Dr. Raisis as equivocal if other evidence in the record would permit a different conclusion. The evidence presented allowed the Board to do just that.
Caldwell v. State, Del. Super., C.A. No. 84A-DE-1, Ridgely, J. (Oct. 7, 1987) (The Board does not need to accept uncontradicted medical testimony if evidence or circumstances exist that lead the Board to draw contrary inferences); Hoffman v. Reliable Corporation, Del. Super., No. 99A-04-005, 1999 WL 1222648, Babiarz, J. (Dec. 2, 1999).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that since it is manifest on the face of the Appellant's brief that there is substantial evidence to support the Board's findings, and that the Board's findings are free from errors of law, the Motion to Affirm is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.