Opinion ID: 1528539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Superior Court's First Opinion Legal Standard of Causation Correctly Decided

Text: In this case, the record reflects that Steen had an unknown pre-existing physical condition or defect in the form of a brain aneurysm. The medical experts for both parties testified that Steen's aneurysm had probably existed for as long as five to ten years before it ruptured. Thus, it is undisputed that Steen had an aneurysm of which he was unaware until the day it ruptured during the performance of his ordinary duties as a volunteer fireman. The Superior Court's analysis of the difference between and application of the but for and substantial factor standards of proximate cause was thorough and entirely correct. The substantial factor standard is used in Delaware to determine whether the usual conditions of employment provided the causative nexus for compensability only in the absence of an industrial accident because of the difficulty of identifying a specific link between regular job-related duties and the aggravation of preexisting ailments. Reese v. Home Budget Center, Del.Supr., 619 A.2d 907, 911 (1992). Because Steen's aneurysm was pre-existing and because Steen did not experience an identifiable physical accident, the Superior Court properly held that, as a matter of law, the substantial factor standard of proximate cause, as explained in Duvall, had to be applied by the Board in determining the compensability of Steen's claim. The Superior Court then ended its first opinion, as follows: For all the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Industrial Accident Board denying Wayne Steen's petition for workmen's compensation benefits is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the Board for further consideration consistent with this Opinion.