The employer and insurer appeal from the compensation judge’s decision awarding contingent attorney fees and subdivision 7 fees.  Concluding the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we dismiss the appeal.

The employer and insurer filed a petition to discontinue benefits that was heard by Compensation Judge James F. Cannon at the Office of Administrative Hearings in October 2009.  A Findings and Order was served and filed on December 14, 2009, permitting discontinuance.  On March 5, 2010, the employee’s attorney, Edward W. Risch, filed a Statement of Attorney Fees seeking payment of contingent attorney fees and subdivision 7 fees.  The employer and insurer objected to the requested fees.  A hearing was held before the compensation judge, on stipulated facts, on May 24, 2010.

On July 2, 2010, a Findings and Order on Attorney’s Fees was served and filed by Compensation Judge Cannon ordering the employer and insurer to pay withheld contingent attorney fees to attorney Risch, and to pay partial reimbursement of attorney fees to the employee pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subdivision 7.  On July 8, 2010, an Amended Findings and Order on Attorney’s Fees was served and filed correcting a typographical error in order 1, in which the amount of contingent fees ordered paid was stated as $1,864.00, instead of the correct amount of $1,800.64.  On August 4, 2010, the employer and insurer filed, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, a notice of appeal “from the Decision of Compensation Judge James Cannon dated the 2nd day of July, 2010, along with his Amended Findings and Order dated the 8th day of July, 2010.”

Minnesota Statutes § 176.421 provides that a party may appeal to this court by serving and filing a notice of appeal within 30 days of the service of an award or disallowance of compensation.  Statutes providing for an appeal are to be strictly construed, and this court does not have discretion to expand the time for filing.  The service and filing requirements are jurisdictional and this court may not consider an appeal that was not timely filed.  See Kearns v. Julette Originals Dress Co., 267 Minn. 278, 126 N.W.2d 266, 23 W.C.D. 127 (1964).

The employer and insurer’s notice of appeal was filed on August 4, 2010.  The thirtieth day from the service and filing of the original findings and order fell on August 2, 2010.  However, the time for filing a notice of appeal with respect to the amended findings and order did not expire until August 9, 2010.  The question is, therefore, whether the time for appeal ran from the original findings and order or from the amended findings and order.

The appellate courts of this state have long held that the service and filing of an amended judgment does not extend the time to appeal issues that could have been raised on appeal from the original judgment.  Review of an amended judgment is limited to issues directly affected by the amendment, not otherwise reviewable by an appeal from the original judgment.  Thus, issues that could have been raised on appeal from the original judgment, which are undisturbed by an amendment to the judgment, may not be reviewed on an appeal from the amended judgment.  Dennis Frandsen Co., Inc. v. Kanabec Co., 306 N.W.2d 566, 570 (Minn. 1981); E.C.I. Corp. v. G.G.C. Co., 306 Minn. 433, 435, 237 N.W.2d 627, 629 (1976); Malmgren v. Phinney, 65 Minn. 25, 67 N.W. 649 (1896); Geckler v. Samuelson, 438 N.W.2d 740 (Minn. App. 1989).  These principles are applicable to appeals in workers’ compensation proceedings.  Oas v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co., 38 W.C.D. 267 (W.C.C.A. 1985); compare Roberts v. University of Minn. Hosp. & Clinic, slip op. (W.C.C.A. Aug. 28, 2002).

The compensation judge, in the July 2, 2010, findings and order, found attorney Risch was entitled to contingent attorney fees, in the amount of $1,800.64, for his representation of the employee (finding 22), and that the employee was entitled to partial reimbursement of attorney fees pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subdivison 7 (finding 24).  On appeal, the employer and insurer argue that where discontinuance of wage loss benefits was allowed, the compensation judge erred as a matter of law in awarding payment of contingent attorney fees and subdivision 7 fees, seeking reversal of findings 22 and 24 and orders 1 and 4 of the original decision.  The issues raised by the appellants clearly could have been raised on appeal from the original findings and order.  The employer and insurer do not contest the amount of contingent fees awarded, incorrectly stated due to a typographical error in order 1, and corrected in the amended findings and order.

The appellants failed to timely appeal from the original July 2, 2010, Findings and Order on Attorney Fees, and the July 8, 2010, Amended Findings and Order did not amend or modify the findings and issues raised on appeal.  The appeal is, accordingly dismissed.