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 claimed to have suffered two on-the-job injuries while employed by the Employer, one in February 1991 and another in October 1991. Following the injuries, the Worker received treatment from different healthcare providers. The Worker later filed claims for workers' compensation benefits for both injuries, which were consolidated. The Worker also filed a notice to change his healthcare provider, which the Employer and Insurer objected to (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration, August 18, 1992: The Workers' Compensation Judge denied the Employer and Insurer's objection to the Worker's notice of change of healthcare provider (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Employer and Insurer): Argued that the Workers' Compensation Judge's order denying their objection to the Worker's notice of change of healthcare provider was a final and appealable order. They also contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the Judge's order (paras 1, 6-7).
- Appellee (Worker): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the Workers' Compensation Judge's order denying the objection to the Worker's notice of change of healthcare provider is a final and appealable order (para 1).
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, as the order was not deemed final and appealable (para 13).
Reasons
Per Flores J. (Minzner C.J. and Alarid J. concurring):
The Court held that the order denying the objection to the Worker's notice of change of healthcare provider was not a final and appealable order because the underlying workers' compensation claims were still pending before the Workers' Compensation Administration. The Court emphasized that an order is not final unless all issues of law and fact have been resolved and the case has been fully disposed of. The Court rejected the Appellants' argument that the order should be treated as final because it was crucial to the preparation of the compensation claims, noting that the order was interrelated with the merits of the compensation claims. The Court also found that the collateral order doctrine did not apply, as the order could be reviewed on appeal from the final compensation order (paras 5-12).