CHRISTIANA CARE HEALTH SERVICES, Employer/Appellant/Cross-Appellee Below, Appellant,
THOMAS A. LUCE, Claimant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant Below, Appellee.
Submitted: May 15, 2017
Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware C.A. No.
STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
L. Valihura Justice.
19th day of May 2017, having considered the notice
of appeal from interlocutory order it appears to the Court
May 15, 2017, the appellant petitioned this Court, under
Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an interlocutory appeal from
a Superior Court order of April 3, 2017, which dismissed the
parties' cross-appeal from an Industrial Accident Board
decision denying a motion to dismiss. In the April 3 order, the
Superior Court determined it was without subject matter
jurisdiction to consider the cross-appeal because the
Board's decision on appeal was an interlocutory
statute, the Superior Court has appellate jurisdiction to
consider "an award" of the Industrial Accident
Board. The word "award" has been
interpreted to mean the Board's "final
determination" in an action for
compensation. The Superior Court has no jurisdiction,
discretionary or otherwise, to consider an appeal from
anything other than a final award of the Board.
Before dismissing the cross-appeal, the Superior Court
directed the parties to exchange and file simultaneous
letters stating their positions on whether the Board's
decision on appeal was an unappealable interlocutory order.
In their letters responding to the court, neither party
disputed that the Board's decision was interlocutory.
April 13, 2017, the appellant filed an application asking the
Superior Court to certify an interlocutory appeal. The
Superior Court denied the application after determining that
the April 3 dismissal was based on settled law and that
interlocutory review of the dismissal would not terminate the
litigation or serve considerations of justice. We agree with the
Superior Court's well-reasoned denial of certification
and will refuse the appeal.
Additionally, we have determined that the appeal in this
Court must be dismissed as untimely. The appellant filed the
appeal under Supreme Court Rule 42, which governs appeals
from interlocutory orders. In this case, however, the April 3
order dismissing the parties' cross-appeal was a final
order of the Superior Court.Appeals from final orders are
governed by Supreme Court Rule 6, which provides that a
notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the
order on appeal. In this case, because the appeal from the
April 3 order was not filed until May 15, the appeal was
untimely filed, and it must be dismissed.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is
REFUSED under Supreme Court Rule 42 and DISMISSED under
Supreme Court Rules 6 and 29(c).
 The Board denied the motion to dismiss
without prejudice to the parties raising the issue in a