Submitted: July 8, 2013.
On Appellee PMA's Motion for Oral Reargument.
H. Garrett Baker, Esquire Elzufon, Austin, Tarlov & Mondell.
William Rimmer, Esquire Heckler & Frabizzio.
Steve Mones, Esquire The Freibott Law Firm.
William C. Carpenter, Jr. Judge.
The Court is in receipt of Appellee PMA's Motion for Oral Reargument in the above-captioned case. In essence, the Appellee asserts that the Court went beyond the role it appropriately plays in considering appeals of the Industrial Accident Board. The Court has reviewed the Motion as well as the previous Opinion issued on June 28, 2013 and does not believe it has misapprehended the law or facts or overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principle that would justify reconsideration of the Opinion. The Court believes it has appropriately and fairly considered the issues on appeal and has exercised its jurisdiction and authority properly. As such, Appellee PMA's Motion for Oral Reargument is hereby DENIED.
The Court also notes that the argument set forth in Appellee's Motion concerning 19 Del. C. § 2327(a) is not a matter raised on appeal and therefore the Court will not take any additional argument on that request. If you have some concern regarding PMA's responsibility as to the amount of compensation to be paid to the employee, you should take that up with the Industrial Accident Board by filing the appropriate petition.
As a result, the Motion filed on behalf of PMA is ...