Opinion
C.A. No. 98A-02-012-RSG.
Submitted: August 24, 1999.
Decided: October 12, 1999.
Upon Appellant's Motion for Reargument. Motion Denied.
JR. Julian, Esq., J.R. Julian, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellant Johnson Controls, Inc.
Matthew M. Barkowski, Esq., Kimmel, Carter, Roman Peltz, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellee Johnnie Haines
ORDER
Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court finds and concludes as follows:
1. Appellant Johnson Controls, Inc. ("Employer") has moved for reargument as a result of the written opinion of August 17, 1999, in disposition of the above case. Having considered the reasons set forth in the respective motion, as well as those set forth in the response of Appellee Johnnie Haines ("Claimant"), I am of the opinion that reargument must be denied.
2. Employer in part seeks reargument based on what it feels to be an erroneous interpretation by the Court of State v. Steen, Del. Supr., 719 A.2d 930 (1998). Employer argues that this Court incorrectly limited the issues of the rehearing on remand to those issues contested on appeal. Employer bases its interpretation on language from Steen which states "[t]he Board is to decide the matter, after the remand hearing, on the basis of the evidence from the prior hearing plus any new evidence and legal arguments the parties decide to present." However, in remanding the case to the Board, the Supreme Court narrowed its holding as follows:
State v. Steen, Del. Supr., 719 A.2d 930, 934 (emphasis added).
The parties had a statutory right to participate in the rehearing on remand by presenting additional evidence and legal argument in accordance with the proper "substantial factor" standard of proximate cause. The absolute denial of the State's statutory rights by the Board constituted reversible error.
Id. at 935.
Thus, Steen does not require the Board to hear the entire case anew on remand, but rather, allows the parties to revisit the issue identified by this Court as problematic.
3. Employer's other basis for reargument is that Employer would be unfairly prejudiced by any limiting of the issues on remand because this would not offer Employer the opportunity to have those issues addressed that were previously raised on appeal. However, the causation issue is the umbrella under which other issues arise. When the Board makes findings on remand based on the appropriate standard of causation, the parties may then raise issues on appeal as they see fit.
The motion for reargument is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.