Case Title: KCI Technologies, Inc. v. Banks

Citation: 

Docket Number: 87, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-07-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KCI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 
 
Employer Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
RONALD BANKS, 
 
Employee Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 87, 2009  
§ 
§ 
§  Court BelowCSuperior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 08A-04-001 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 11, 2009 
  Decided: June 15, 2009 
Revised:  July 1, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 15th day of June 2009, upon consideration of the notice to show 
cause and the response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The employer-appellant, KCI Technologies, Inc. (“KCI”), filed 
this appeal from an order of the Superior Court reversing a decision of the 
Industrial Accident Board, which denied Ronald Banks’ petition to determine 
compensation due.  The IAB, after holding a hearing, found that Banks’ 
petition was barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations.  The 
Superior Court reversed that decision on appeal. KCI now appeals to this 
Court from the Superior Court’s reversal of the IAB’s decision. 
 
2
(2) 
On April 16, 2009, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice to KCI 
to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for KCI’s failure to 
comply with the procedures of Supreme Court Rule 42 when appealing from 
an interlocutory order of the Superior Court.  In its response to the rule to 
show cause, KCI contends that it was not required to comply with Rule 42 
because the Superior Court’s decision is final and appealable.  Without citing 
any legal authority, KCI contends that the matter was not remanded to the 
IAB for anything other than “purely ministerial” functions.1  
(3) 
We disagree. The further action required by the IAB is more than 
“ministerial” in nature. The Superior Court’s order of reversal now requires 
the IAB to decide Banks’ claim and to fashion an appropriate final judgment 
of the merits of his petition.2 Because the underlying cause in this appeal is 
still pending before the IAB for a decision on the merits, the matter must be 
dismissed as interlocutory.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within appeal is 
hereby DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice 
                                                 
1 Pollard v. The Placers, Inc., 692 A.2d 879, 880-81 (Del. 1997). 
2 Agilent Technologies v. Delpizzo, 2005 WL 583744 (Del. Mar. 10, 2005).