This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The worker filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after her case was assigned to a judge. She attempted to exercise her right to file a peremptory challenge against the assigned judge but faced procedural disputes regarding the timeliness of her filing. The worker argued that her challenge was valid under the applicable rules, including an additional three-day mailing period for notices served by mail (paras 1-2, 9-12).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration, August 24, 1990: The Workers' Compensation Judge struck the worker's peremptory challenge as untimely and dismissed her claim for benefits (paras 1-2, 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Worker): Argued that her peremptory challenge to the assigned judge was timely under the rules, including the three-day mailing period for notices served by mail. She contended that the judge's refusal to honor her challenge rendered subsequent actions void (paras 1, 9-12).
- Respondents (Employer and Insurer): Asserted that the worker's peremptory challenge was untimely and that she waived her arguments by failing to appear at the hearing on their motion to strike the challenge. They also argued that the judge's actions were valid (paras 7-9).
Legal Issues
- Was the worker's peremptory challenge to the assigned judge timely under the applicable rules?
- Did the judge err in refusing to honor the worker's peremptory challenge?
- Were the judge's subsequent actions void due to the alleged improper handling of the peremptory challenge?
Disposition
- The court held that the worker's peremptory challenge was timely and should have been honored. All actions taken by the judge after the challenge were void. The case was remanded to the Workers' Compensation Administration for further proceedings (paras 1, 14).
Reasons
Per Minzner J. (Pickard and Flores JJ. concurring):
The court found that the worker's peremptory challenge was timely because the applicable rules allowed for an additional three-day mailing period when notices were served by mail. The court interpreted the term "issue" in the rules to include the mailing of the notice, which extended the filing deadline to thirteen days. Since the worker filed her challenge within this period, it was valid (paras 9-12).
The court rejected the respondents' argument that the worker waived her rights by not attending the hearing on the motion to strike. It emphasized that any actions taken by a judge after a proper peremptory challenge are void. The court also noted that the rules must be clear and definite to ensure parties understand their obligations (paras 8, 10-13).
The court reversed the dismissal of the worker's claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. It deferred the award of attorney fees for the appeal, leaving it to the new judge to determine if the worker ultimately prevails (para 14).