Robinson v. Regal Heights Healthcare & Rehab

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: November 8, 2023
• Docket: 378, 2023
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CHAMEEKA ROBINSON, § GUARDIAN OF DERRICK § No. 378, 2023 CRAWFORD, § § Court Below–Superior Court Plaintiff Below, § of the State of Delaware Appellant, § § C.A. No. N22C-09-522 v. § § REGAL HEIGHTS § HEALTHCARE & REHAB § CENTER, LLC d/b/a REGAL § HEIGHTS HEALTHCARE & § REHABILITATION CENTER § and NATIONWIDE § HEALTHCARE SERVICES, § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. §

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 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). 2 (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