Secretary Claire DeMatteis, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Delaware Department of Human Resources and Co-Chair of the State Employee Ben, 315 A.3d 499

The State Employee Benefits Committee (SEBC) in Delaware, pursuant to statutory authority, decided to transition state retirees from a traditional Medicare Supplement plan to a Medicare Advantage (Part C) plan.
Plaintiffs (RiseDelaware Inc. and individual retirees) challenged this decision, arguing it constituted a "regulation" under the Delaware Administrative Procedures Act (APA), thus requiring formal rulemaking procedures, which SEBC did not follow.
The Delaware Superior Court agreed with plaintiffs, granted a stay to halt implementation of the Medicare Advantage plan, and required the State to maintain existing retiree benefits.
SEBC (defendants) appealed, asserting their decision was not a regulation, but the implementation of a statutory directive; thus, the APA did not apply and the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction for the stay.
A cross-appeal by plaintiffs sought attorneys’ fees, arguing their success in obtaining the stay justified a fee award under exceptions to the American Rule.
The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed whether SEBC’s action was a regulation under the APA and if the fee denial was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was SEBC’s plan choice a "regulation" under the APA?	SEBC's Medicare Advantage decision was a policy change affecting rights of retirees, thus a regulation subject to APA.	Selecting a Medicare plan is not a regulation but the execution of a statutory mandate; not subject to APA.	SEBC’s action was not a “regulation”; the APA did not apply.
Did the Superior Court have jurisdiction to stay SEBC’s plan?	Yes, because APA compliance was required for a regulation; thus, court could grant the stay.	No, jurisdiction was lacking because the decision was not a regulation.	No jurisdiction; Stay Order reversed.
Was the appeal on the merits properly before the Court?	Procedural steps rendered the appeal interlocutory and untimely.	Parties stipulated to final judgment; appeal was timely and ripe.	Appeal was properly before the Court.
Should attorneys’ fees be awarded to plaintiffs?	Plaintiffs achieved a common benefit and defendants acted in bad faith, justifying fees.	No basis for fee-shifting: no prevailing party, no bad faith.	Denied as moot: plaintiffs not prevailing party after reversal.

Free-Flow Packaging Int'l, Inc. v. Sec'y of Dep't of Nat. Res. & Env't Control of State, 861 A.2d 1233 (Del. 2004) (establishes that not all agency actions are regulations subject to the APA; agencies implementing detailed statutory directives may be outside the APA’s scope)
Mahani v. Edix Media Group, Inc., 935 A.2d 242 (Del. 2007) (restates the American Rule that litigants generally pay their own attorney’s fees)
Montgomery Cellular Holding Co., Inc. v. Dobler, 880 A.2d 206 (Del. 2005) (discusses the "bad faith" exception to fee shifting under the American Rule)
Sussex Cty. Dep’t of Elections v. Sussex Cty. Republican Comm., 58 A.3d 418 (Del. 2013) (explores statutory interpretation and legislative intent)