The Board did not abuse its discretion in allowing limited testimony about severity of claimant’s work-related auto accident when denying petition for additional compensation.

The sole issue before the Superior Court was whether the Board had committed a legal error by initially failing to exclude testimony of the damage to the vehicle, only to finally exclude such evidence at the close of the hearing, but then to improperly rely on that evidence in its decision. Counsel cited the Delaware Supreme Court case of Davis v. Maute, 770 A.2d 36 (Del. 2001) (a party in a personal injury case may not directly argue that the seriousness of personal injuries from a car accident correlate to the extent of damage to the car unless the party can produce competent expert testimony on that issue). The court concluded that the Board did not run afoul of the Davis holding and did not abuse its discretion by allowing limited testimony regarding the severity of the auto accident’s impact. The court reasoned that the employer had never argued before the Board that there was any correlation between the minor nature of the claimant’s auto accident and her injuries. Rather, it was the claimant’s medical expert who relied on the severity of the accident’s impact to support his causation opinion and justify the need for cervical spine surgery. Once the claimant’s medical expert had opened the door with that testimony, the court said it was entirely reasonable for the Board to allow the employer to offer contradictory evidence questioning the severity of the accident, especially when that evidence came from the claimant’s own testimony.

_{Case Law Alerts, 4^th Quarter, October 2016. Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2016 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}