 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Buckley v. Delaware Valley Rehabilitation Services Inc.6/24/1998
employer's account of the injury and its effects.
Buckley appealed to the Superior Court, which granted DVRS' motion to affirm on July 21, 1997. The Superior Court deferred to the Board's factual findings, and in particular to its Conclusion that Buckley was incapacitated "for at most one full day and a portion of another" as a result of her injury. Buckley now appeals to this Court, asking us to revisit the factual disputes that underlie her claim for compensation. In addition, she argues that procedural irregularities took place at the Board's hearing that compel reversal. For the reasons that follow, we disagree and affirm.
Standard and Scope of Review
We review factual findings of the Board only to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence, i.e., "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." So long as the Board's findings enjoy support in the form of satisfactory proof, and there is no error of law, the reviewing court will affirm its Disposition of the case.
Discussion
After a thorough review, we find that the decisions of the Board and the Superior Court are supported by the record. As claimant, Buckley had the burden of proving that she endured three days of incapacity due to a work-related injury. Aside from her own subjective testimony, she presented testimony of a medical expert, whose diagnosis DVRS vigorously challenged via expert witnesses of its own. The fact that Buckley was unable to work on Thursday, October 24, and Friday, October 25, was uncontested. Otherwise, with competent evidence DVRS refuted each of Buckley's claims. The record contains substantial evidence suggesting that Buckley's incapacity did not persist beyond the Friday immediately following her accident. The Board's decision reflects that it accepted the employer's account of the facts as the more credible. The applicable standard of appellate review defers to the factfinder's assessment of credibility.
Buckley contends that reversal is nonetheless proper because of an alleged procedural error at the Board's hearing. Specifically, she complains that the Board wrongfully permitted its counsel to question her and certain of the medical experts. Once again, we find no ground for reversal. Although "the primary responsibility for the examination and cross-examination of witnesses that of counsel," there is no indication here that the Board abused its statutory discretion to "examine persons as witnesses . . . necessary to enable it to effectively discharge the duties of office." The record reflects that counsel's questions were properly circumscribed and did not constitute an abuse of the judicial process. The record also reflects that the testimony elicited by the Board's counsel was cumulative and did not materially affect the outcome of the case.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Superior Court upholding the decision of the Industrial Accident Board is affirmed.
Page 1 2 Delaware Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|