Title: First State Orthopaedics,P.A., et al. v. Tucker
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 569, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 3, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FIRST STATE ORTHOPAEDICS, 
§  
P.A., and FIRST STATE SURGERY § 
No. 569, 2012 
  
CENTER, LLC, 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court  
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
Appellants,  
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHARLENE TUCKER,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. 09C-07-126 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 19, 2012 
Decided: 
December 3, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 3rd day of December 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendants/appellants, First State Orthopaedics, P.A., and 
First State Surgery Center, LLC (“Defendants”), have petitioned this Court, 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42 (“Rule 42”), to accept an appeal from 
interlocutory orders of the Superior Court entered on August 16, 2011 and 
October 11, 2012.  The Superior Court’s August 16, 2011 opinion and order 
granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on certain common law 
claims brought by the plaintiff/appellee, Charlene Tucker (“Plaintiff”), but 
denied Defendants’ motions as to Plaintiff’s statutory claims. In its October 
2 
 
11, 2012 order, the Superior Court denied Defendants’ motion for 
reargument of the August 16, 2011 opinion and order. 
(2) 
Defendants filed their application for certification of an 
interlocutory appeal on October 18, 2012.  Plaintiff filed a response 
opposing the application on October 31, 2012.  By order dated November 
19, 2012, the Superior Court granted Defendants’ application for 
certification. 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court.  The Court has examined the Superior Court’s 
interlocutory orders of August 16, 2011 and October 11, 2012 under the 
criteria in Rule 42.  In the exercise of our discretion, we have concluded that 
exceptional circumstances warranting interlocutory review do not exist in 
this case.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice