Title: Fieni v. Catholic Health East
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 337, 2014
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 11, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARY LOU FIENI, 
 
 
Appellant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CATHOLIC HEALTH EAST, 
 
Appellee Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 337, 2014 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. N13A-07-005 
§ 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 10, 2014 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: December 11, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 11th day of December 2014, upon consideration of the parties’ 
briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Mary Lou Fieni, filed this appeal from a 
Superior Court Order, dated April 29, 2014, which affirmed a decision of the 
Industrial Accident Board (“the Board”) denying Fieni’s petition for 
additional compensation due.1  After careful consideration, we find no merit 
to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
                                                 
1Fieni v. Catholic Health East, 2014 WL 2444795 (Del. Super. Apr. 29, 2014).  Fieni 
also appeals the Superior Court’s denial of her motion for reargument. See Fieni v. 
Catholic Health East, 2014 WL 3050618 (Del. Super. May 27, 2014). 
 
2 
(2) 
The record reflects that Fieni was injured in a work-related slip-
and-fall accident on April 10, 2007 while she was employed by Catholic 
Health East (“the Employer”).  Although Fieni had pre-existing injuries from 
prior work accidents, the Employer did not contest Fieni’s eligibility for 
benefits and medical treatment of a right knee injury, including surgery, as a 
result of her April 2007 accident.  In March 2011, Fieni was seen by 
Dr. Steven Grossinger, D.O. for complaints of pain in her legs, back, and 
hand.  Dr. Grossinger diagnosed her with complex regional pain syndrome 
(CRPS) attributable to her April 2007 work accident and began treating 
Fieni with a series of nerve blocks.  In October 2012, Fieni filed a petition to 
determine additional compensation due based on this new diagnosis and 
treatment.  
(3) 
The Board held a hearing on Fieni’s petition on April 5, 2013 at 
which Fieni testified.  The Board also considered the deposition testimony of 
Dr. Grossinger and Dr. John Townsend.  Dr. Townsend testified that Fieni 
had swelling and chronic pain in her right leg but that she did not have 
CRPS.  On June 14, 2013, the Board issued its decision, concluding that it 
found 
Dr. 
Townsend’s 
expert 
opinion 
more 
persuasive 
than 
Dr. Grossinger’s.  Ultimately, the Board denied Fieni’s petition for 
additional compensation due because it found her treatment for CRPS was 
 
3 
not reasonable or necessary.  Fieni appealed to the Superior Court.  On April 
29, 2014, the Superior Court affirmed the Board’s decision.  Fieni then filed 
the present appeal. 
(4) 
In reviewing an appeal from a decision of the Board, this Court 
must determine whether the Board’s decision is supported by substantial 
evidence and is free from legal error.2 Substantial evidence means such 
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support 
a conclusion.3  It means more than a scintilla and less than a preponderance 
of the evidence.4  Weighing the evidence, determining the credibility of 
witnesses, and resolving any conflicts in the testimony are functions 
reserved exclusively to the Board.5   
(5) 
In her opening brief on appeal, Fieni asserts that both 
Dr. Townsend and the Employer’s attorney were not credible and misled the 
Board.  She further contends that the Board erred in concluding that she had 
not met her burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that her 
CRPS diagnosis was causally related to her April 2007 work accident.  
                                                 
2 Stoltz Mgmt. Co. v. Consumer Affairs Bd., 616 A.2d 1205, 1208 (Del. 1992). 
3 Streett v. State, 669 A.2d 9, 11 (Del. 1995). 
4 Breeding v. Contractor-One-Inc., 549 A.2d 1102, 1104 (Del. 1988). 
5 Id. at 1106. 
 
4 
(6) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs on appeal, we 
conclude that the Superior Court’s decision affirming the Board’s denial of 
Fieni’s petition should be affirmed.  The Board carefully considered all of 
the evidence presented in this case, including the conflicting medical 
opinions, and found the Employer’s medical expert to be more credible.   It 
was entirely within the Board’s discretion to determine the credibility of the 
witnesses and to resolve the conflicts in the testimony.6  We conclude that 
the Board’s decision denying Fieni’s petition to determine additional 
compensation due is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal 
error.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
6 Clements v. Diamond State Port Corp., 831 A.2d 870, 878 (Del. 2003).