 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Anderson v. General Motors Corp.2/29/2000
the part of the Board in denying Anderson's motion for reargument so that further evidence could be presented. The record indicates it was Anderson's choice to rely solely on documentary evidence, rather than live testimony, at the hearing. Moreover, in its decision denying Anderson's motion for reargument, the Board stated it had reviewed the 1994 medical record from Dr. Ehrenthal and the 1998 letter from Dr. Johnson and found them to be less credible than Dr. Johnson's June 1997 office notes.
(12) It is manifest on the face of Anderson's opening brief that this appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), General Motors' motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
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.
|
|