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 Employer and Insurer (Appellants) sought to extend the time to file a peremptory disqualification of the Workers’ Compensation Administration (WCA) judge, citing a clerical error in the notice of judge assignment. The notice was mailed to the parties but not to their attorneys, and the Appellants failed to provide an explanation for why they could not notify their attorneys of the assignment.
Procedural History
- Workers’ Compensation Administration: Denied the Appellants' motion to extend time for peremptory disqualification of the WCA judge and their motion for reconsideration.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Employer and Insurer): Argued that the denial of their motion to extend time for peremptory disqualification should be reviewed under the collateral order doctrine, as it conclusively resolved a separate issue and was unreviewable on appeal. Alternatively, they requested review as an interlocutory appeal, asserting that the WCA’s clerical error violated specific procedural rules.
- Appellee (Worker): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the denial of the motion to extend time for peremptory disqualification of the WCA judge qualifies for review under the collateral order doctrine.
- Whether the denial of the motion can be reviewed as an interlocutory appeal.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final order.
Reasons
Per Roderick T. Kennedy J. (Wechsler and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the collateral order doctrine is a narrow exception to the rule against reviewing non-final orders. While the issue was separate from the merits and could be conclusively resolved, it failed the third prong of the test because it was reviewable on appeal from the final compensation order. The Court emphasized that appellate review of the final order would allow the Appellants to challenge the WCA judge’s actions if necessary.
The Court also rejected the Appellants’ request for interlocutory review, noting that such review is generally not available for agency decisions unless a constitutional right is implicated or the agency exceeded its authority. The clerical error in the notice of judge assignment did not rise to this level, as notice was mailed to the parties, and the Appellants failed to explain why they could not notify their attorneys.
For these reasons, the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final order.