Title: This and That Services Co. Inc. v. Nieves

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THIS AND THAT SERVICES CO. 
INC., 
 
 
Appellee-Employer Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
RAYMOND NIEVES, 
 
Appellant-Claimant Below,  
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§ No. 326, 2022 
§ 
§ Court Below: Superior Court  
§ of the State of Delaware 
§     
§ C.A. No. S21A-11-004 
§  
§                        
§                         
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  September 22, 2022 
 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  October 11, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
This and That Services Co. Inc. (the “Employer”) filed this appeal from 
a memorandum opinion and order of the Superior Court dated August 10, 2022, in 
an appeal from a decision of the Industrial Accident Board (the “Board”).  The 
Board’s decision had determined that narcotic medication for Raymond Nieves was 
not reasonable and necessary after June 13, 2017, and therefore was not compensable 
2 
 
by the Employer.1  Nieves appealed to the Superior Court, and the Superior Court 
held that the sole issue that was properly before the Board was whether a June 2017 
prescription for narcotic medication was medically warranted.  The court therefore 
reversed the Board’s decision and remanded for the case to be dismissed, without 
prejudice to either party’s right to contest medical bills that might be presented for 
periods after June 2017.2 
(2) 
The Superior Court entered its memorandum opinion and order on 
August 10, 2022.  Later that day, Nieves filed an application seeking an award of 
attorneys’ fees under 19 Del. C. § 2350(f).3  The Employer filed an opposition to the 
fee application on August 22, and Nieves filed a reply on August 26.  The fee 
application remains pending in the Superior Court.  The Employer filed this appeal 
on September 9, 2022.  The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing the 
Employer to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to 
comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent 
interlocutory order.    
 
1 Nieves v. This & That Servs. Co., C.A. No. S21A-11-004, Exhibit to Docket Entry No. 11 (Del. 
Super. Ct. filed Mar. 1, 2022) (Board decision dated Oct. 18, 2021). 
2 Nieves v. This & That Servs. Co., 2022 WL 3225283 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 10, 2022). 
3 That section provides: “The Superior Court may at its discretion allow a reasonable fee to 
claimant’s attorney for services on an appeal from the Board to the Superior Court and from the 
Superior Court to the Supreme Court where the claimant’s position in the hearing before the Board 
is affirmed on appeal.  Such fee shall be taxed in the costs and become a part of the final judgment 
in the cause and may be recovered against the employer and the employer’s insurance carrier as 
provided in this subchapter.”  19 Del. C. § 2350(f). 
3 
 
(3) 
In response to the notice to show cause, the Employer argues that the 
Superior Court’s August 10 order “reads as the Court’s final act” because it 
“reversed the underlying Decision of the Industrial Accident Board and remanded 
the matter for the Board to summarily enter dismissal of Employer’s Petition.”  The 
Employer contends that “nothing in the language of the Supreme Court Rules 
indicate[s] that a subsequent motion for attorney’s fees converts an otherwise final 
order into an interlocutory order.”  The Employer asserts that because Nieves did 
not raise the issue of attorneys’ fees before the issuance of the Superior Court’s 
decision and the Superior Court’s decision did not address the issue of fees, the 
application for attorneys’ fees is an “ancillary issue” and the Superior Court’s 
August 10 order is final and appealable.  
(4) 
Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate 
jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of a trial court’s final judgment.4  
“An order is deemed final and appealable if the trial court has declared its intention 
that the order be the court’s final act in disposing of all justiciable matters within its 
jurisdiction.”5  This court has repeatedly held that an order is not final and appealable 
 
4 CCSB Fin. Corp. v. Totta, 2022 WL 4124751, at *1 (Del. Sept. 12, 2022); Roos Foods v. 
Guardado, 2016 WL 1222170, at *1 (Del. Mar. 28, 2016). 
5 Wollner v. PearPop, Inc., 2022 WL 2903103, at *1 (Del. July 21, 2022); see also Gaffin v. 
Teledyne, Inc., 1991 WL 181488, at *1 (Del. Aug. 23, 1991) (“An order is final and ripe for appeal 
when the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order be the court’s final act in a 
case.” (internal quotations omitted)). 
4 
 
if the trial court has not ruled on an outstanding application for attorneys’ fees.6  In 
Roos Foods v. Guardado, for example, this Court dismissed an appeal from a 
Superior Court opinion affirming the Industrial Accident Board’s denial of an 
employer’s petition for termination of benefits.  The Court determined that the 
appeal was interlocutory because the employee had filed a fee application under 19 
Del. C. § 2350(f) following the issuance of the Superior Court’s decision and the 
application remained outstanding in the Superior Court when the employer filed the 
notice of appeal in this Court.7   
(5) 
After careful consideration, we conclude that this appeal must be 
dismissed as interlocutory.  Nieves’s fee application was outstanding when the 
Employer filed the appeal and remains so now.  The Employer was therefore 
required to comply with the provisions of Rule 42 or await the Superior Court’s entry 
of a final order. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is hereby 
DISMISSED.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
6 E.g., Roos Foods, 2016 WL 1222170, at *1 & n.4 (citing cases). 
7 Id. at *2.  See also Roos Foods v. Guardado, No. 87, 2016, Docket Entry No. 9 (Del. filed Mar. 
10, 2016) (stating that fee application under 19 Del. C. § 2350(f) was filed in Superior Court on 
January 27, 2016, one day after the Superior Court’s decision that was the subject of the Supreme 
Court appeal).