Title: Dept. of Health & Social Services, et al. v. Banner

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 
SOCIAL SERVICES and the MERIT 
EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BOARD,  
 
Appellees Below, 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
TUESDAY S. BANNER, 
 
Appellant Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 560, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. N14A-03-001 DCS 
§   
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  November 2, 2015 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:    November 16, 2015 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
 
This 16th day of November 2015, having considered the notice of appeal 
from an interlocutory order, the supplemental notice of appeal from an 
interlocutory order, and the motion to stay pending the outcome of the appeal, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, the Department of Health and Social Services 
(“DHSS”), has petitioned this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an 
appeal from the Superior Court’s September 28, 2015 opinion reversing a decision 
of the Merit Employee Relations Board (“MERB”) and remanding the matter to 
2 
 
the MERB.  DHSS has also filed a motion to stay pending the outcome of the 
appeal. 
(2) 
On October 7, 2015, DHSS filed an application for certification to 
take an interlocutory appeal and a stay of proceedings in the Superior Court.  In an 
order dated October 23, 2015, the Superior Court denied DHSS’ application for 
certification and a stay of proceedings.  Having considered the October 23, 2015 
order, this Court agrees with the Superior Court’s denial of certification.  The Rule 
42(b) principles and criteria do not weigh in favor of interlocutory review of the 
Superior Court’s September 28, 2015 opinion.   
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound 
discretion of the Court.  In the exercise of its discretion, the Court has concluded 
that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the requirements of 
Rule 42(b) and should be refused. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 
appeal is REFUSED.  The motion to stay is MOOT. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
           Justice