Title: Torres v. Reybold Homes, Inc.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 460, 2017
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 15, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JUAN TORRES, 
 
 
Appellant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
REYBOLD HOMES, INC., 
 
Appellee Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 460, 2017 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§   
§  C.A. No. N17A-02-012 
§ 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 9, 2018 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: May 15, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 15th day of May 2018, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Juan Torres, filed this appeal from a Superior 
Court decision dated October 11, 2017, dismissing his appeal from a decision 
of the Industrial Accident Board (“the Board”) for failure to prosecute.  After 
careful consideration, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
In September 2016, Torres, through counsel, filed a petition to 
determine disfigurement, seeking additional compensation for disfigurement 
to his knee caused by an industrial accident for which he previously had been 
 
2 
awarded compensation for disability and disfigurement.1  Following a hearing 
on January 12, 2017, the Board awarded Torres a total of twenty-eight weeks 
of additional compensation for disfigurement, including scarring and altered 
gait.  Torres, acting pro se, appealed that decision to the Superior Court on 
February 28, 2017. 
(3) 
In his single-page opening brief in the Superior Court, Torres 
requested additional compensation for his total disability.  In its answering 
brief, Reybold Homes (“the Employer”) asserted, among other things, that the 
issue of Torres’ total disability was not presented to the Board in the first 
instance.  The Employer also argued that, on March 7, 2017, Torres signed an 
agreement with the Employer accepting $14,242.20 in satisfaction of the 
Board’s judgment as to additional compensation due for disfigurement and 
deposited the check.  Torres did not file a reply brief and received a 
delinquency notice. 
(4) 
On September 25, 2017, the Superior Court directed Torres to 
file a response explaining why his appeal was not moot in light of his signed 
agreement accepting the Employer’s full payment of the IAB’s award and his 
signed receipt of payment.  The Superior Court further directed Torres to 
explain, alternatively, why the appeal should not be dismissed for his failure 
                                                 
1 See Torres v. Reybold Homes, Inc., 2014 WL 5822971 (Del. Nov. 6, 2014). 
 
3 
to file a reply addressing the points made in the Employer’s answering brief.  
Torres failed to respond by the October 8th due date.  On October 11, 2017, 
the Superior Court dismissed Torres’ appeal for failure to prosecute.  This 
appeal followed.   
(5) 
Torres’ opening brief on appeal does not address the Superior 
Court’s dismissal of his appeal for failure to prosecute.  Instead, he asserts that 
his current disability benefits are not enough to cover his monthly expenses.  
He requests that the Court increase his total disability benefits. 
(6) 
This Court will not consider issues on appeal that were not fairly 
raised and presented to the trial court for review.2  The petition Torres filed 
with the Board only raised an issue concerning Torres’ compensation for 
disfigurement to his knee.  There was no request for additional compensation 
due to his total disability.  This issue was not fairly presented to the Board or 
the Superior Court.  Accordingly, we will not consider it here. 
(7) 
Furthermore, we find no error in the Superior Court’s dismissal 
of Torres’ appeal for failure to prosecute.  The Superior Court directed Torres 
to show cause why his appeal was not made moot by his signed agreement 
and receipt of payment of the full amount of the Board’s award in satisfaction 
                                                 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8. 
 
4 
of the judgment.  Torres failed to respond to the court’s directive.  Dismissal 
was entirely appropriate.3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
3 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 72(i).