Title: Robinson v. Regal Heights Healthcare & Rehab
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 378, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 8, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHAMEEKA ROBINSON, 
GUARDIAN OF DERRICK 
CRAWFORD, 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
REGAL HEIGHTS 
HEALTHCARE & REHAB 
CENTER, LLC d/b/a REGAL 
HEIGHTS HEALTHCARE & 
REHABILITATION CENTER 
and NATIONWIDE 
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, 
 
Defendants Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 378, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N22C-09-522 
§   
§   
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 3, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
November 8, 2023 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the parties’ responses, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On October 9, 2023, the appellant, Chameeka Robinson, guardian of 
Derrick Crawford, filed a notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s order—dated 
and docketed September 6, 2023—granting the motion to dismiss filed by the 
appellees, Regal Heights Healthcare & Rehab Center, LLC d/b/a Regal Heights 
2 
 
Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center and Nationwide Healthcare Services (together, 
“Regal Heights”).  Because Supreme Court Rule 6 provides that a civil appeal must 
be filed within thirty days of the lower court’s order,1 a timely notice of appeal was 
due on or before October 6, 2023. 
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Robinson to show 
cause why her appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.  The Court directed 
Robinson to file a response to the notice to show cause by October 19, 2023.  In his 
untimely response to the notice to show cause filed on October 23, 2023, Robinson’s 
attorney claims that a member of his support staff “attempted to file a notice of 
appeal” on October 5, 2023.  According to Robinson’s attorney, his support staff 
member “is still unsure of what went wrong as she sincerely thought she had filed 
the [notice of appeal].”  Regal Heights argues that this appeal should be dismissed 
because its untimeliness cannot be excused. 
(3) 
Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  A notice of appeal must be 
received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective.3  Unless an 
appellant can demonstrate that her failure to file a timely notice of appeal is 
attributable to court-related personnel, the appeal cannot be considered.4   
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i). 
2 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
3 
 
(4) 
As Regal Heights correctly observed in its response to the notice to 
show cause, Robinson’s attorney concedes that his failure to file a timely notice of 
appeal in this case is not attributable to court-related personnel.  Consequently, this 
case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely 
filing of a notice of appeal, and this appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal be DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice