 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Anderson v. General Motors Corp.2/29/2000
which indicated a response of "yes" to the question, "In your opinion, is the patient's disability caused by work for General Motors or any other employer?" The questionnaire also stated: "Patient's arm positioning over time has caused impingement in shoulder."
In its decision denying Anderson's petition the Board found Dr. Johnson's June 1997 office notes to be the most credible evidence concerning when Anderson began to feel pain in his left shoulder.
(6) On December 28, 1998, Anderson moved for reargument before the Board. Anderson requested that the record be opened so the Board could consider the following additional evidence: a) a 1994 medical record from Dr. Ehrenthal, a physician whom Anderson had seen for back pain, stating that he had full range of motion in "his shoulder," b) a December 23, 1998 letter from Dr. Johnson stating that in June 1997 Anderson had denied a previous history of trauma and c) live testimony from Dr. Johnson. The Board denied the motion, stating that Anderson could have presented live testimony from Dr. Johnson at the hearing, but chose not to, and that consideration of the 1994 medical record, which was incomplete and unclear, and Dr. Johnson's 1998 letter, which was written for purposes of litigation, would not cause it to change its decision in any case.
(7) Whether Anderson's claim is barred by the statute of limitations is a mixed question of law and fact that requires this Court to determine whether the Board applied the correct legal standard and the Superior Court was correct in concluding that the factual findings of the Board were supported by substantial evidence. If such evidence exists and the Board's decision is free from legal error, the Superior Court's decision must be affirmed. "'Substantial evidence'" means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." A reviewing court is not free to substitute its own judgment for that of the Board, even if it would reach a different conclusion based upon the facts presented. Moreover, it is the exclusive function of the Board to evaluate the credibility of witnesses.
(8) We conclude the Board based its decision denying the petition on substantial evidence, and there was no error of law. While Anderson claims error in the Board's consideration of Dr. Johnson's June 1997 office notes, the Board was within its discretion and legally correct in considering all documentation presented at the hearing relevant to Anderson's claim, no matter which side presented it. The exclusion of relevant, material and competent evidence by an administrative agency will be grounds for reversal if that refusal is prejudicial.
(9) Anderson suggests he was surprised by the submission of Dr. Johnson's June 1997 office notes at the hearing and did not have an opportunity to prepare a response. He was aware, however, that the sole purpose for the hearing on remand was a determination of when he first had knowledge of a work-related injury. It should have been apparent to him that Dr. Johnson's treatment records were relevant to that issue. Moreover, all such records would have been readily available to him for review.
(10) There is substantial evidence supporting the Board's decision. Dr. Johnson's June 1997 office notes reflect Anderson's awareness of a left shoulder problem during his 1982 employment with General Motors. The Board found this evidence to be more credible than Anderson's testimony concerning when he first experienced left shoulder pain. There was no abuse of discretion and no error of law on the part of the Board in weighing the evidence as it did.
(11) There was, finally, no abuse of discretion on
Page 1 2 3 Delaware Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|