APPEALS - INTERLOCUTORY ORDER; JURISDICTION. An order dismissing parties without prejudice is not an order affecting the merits of the case and this court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from such an order pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1.
Compensation Judge: Jerome R. Arnold
Attorneys: John P. Bailey, Bailey Law Office, Ltd., Bemidji, Minnesota, for the Employee/Respondent. Travis J. Adams, Peterson Logren & Kilbury, P.A., St. Paul, Minnesota, for the Appellant. John S. Pasowicz, McCollum, Crowley, Moschet, Miller & Laak, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minnesota for the Respondent. Kyle T. Kustermann, Erstad & Riemer, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Respondents. David J. Klaiman, Aafedt, Forde, Gray, Monsen & Hager, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Respondents.
Dismissed.
PATRICIA J. MILUN, Chief Judge
Self-insured employer Dee, Inc., appeals from the compensation judge’s order dismissing the claims against Red Lake Falls County Highway Department and Home Insurance Companies/MIGA (Highway Department),[1] and Red Lake County and Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust (County).
The employee filed a claim petition on September 1, 2017, against the self-insured employer, Dee, Inc., seeking various workers’ compensation benefits. Dee, Inc., sought to join prior employers. On May 30, 2018, a compensation judge issued an order joining 1) the Highway Department; 2) the County; 3) American Aerostar and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company; 4) Occupational Development Center and Berkeley Administrators; and 5) Seeger Farms and the Special Compensation Fund.
Three of the prior employers, American Aerostar, the Highway Department, and the County, filed motions to dismiss the claims relating to their respective dates of injury. Following a special term conference, the compensation judge granted the motions and issued an order dismissing the three parties without prejudice on January 10, 2019.[2]
Dee, Inc., appealed from the order, asserting that the judge erred in dismissing the County and the Highway Department.
On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals must determine whether “the findings of fact and order [are] clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1(3). Substantial evidence supports the findings if, in the context of the entire record, “they are supported by evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.” Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54, 59, 37 W.C.D. 235, 239 (Minn. 1984). Where evidence conflicts or more than one inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, the findings are to be affirmed. Id. at 60, 37 W.C.D. at 240. Similarly, findings of fact should not be disturbed, even though the reviewing court might disagree with them, “unless they are clearly erroneous in the sense that they are manifestly contrary to the weight of evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” Northern States Power Co. v. Lyon Food Prods., Inc., 304 Minn. 196, 201, 229 N.W.2d 521, 524 (1975).
A decision which rests upon the application of a statute or rule to essentially undisputed facts generally involves a question of law which the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals may consider de novo. Krovchuk v. Koch Oil Refinery, 48 W.C.D. 607, 608 (W.C.C.A. 1993), summarily aff’d (Minn. June 3, 1993).
As an initial issue, this court must decide whether the compensation judge’s order dismissing the parties is appealable. Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1, states an appeal to the WCCA may be taken from “an award or disallowance of compensation, or other order affecting the merits of the case.” With limited exceptions, there is no right of immediate appeal from an interlocutory order by a compensation judge.[3] Here, the order dismissing the parties did not conclusively determine the dispute over apportionment of liability or a petition for contribution, nor did it fully resolve an issue separate from the merits of the claim.[4]
We conclude the compensation judge’s order is an interlocutory order that does not prevent a later determination on the merits of the case, including the substantive arguments raised by the appellants. [5] Interlocutory orders which are immediately appealable are rare, and this case does not present an extraordinary circumstance to warrant an exception. The order granting dismissal may be later reviewed on appeal should there be a final judgment on the claim petition or a final judgment on future pleadings.
Because the compensation judge’s order does not affect the merits of the case, this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal, which is therefore dismissed.
[1] The parties refer to the Highway Department as both Red Lake Falls County Highway Department and Red Lake County Highway Department. Because the decision below lists Red Lake Falls County Highway Department in the caption, this court will use that title for purposes of this decision.
[2] Seeger Farms and the Special Compensation Fund were also dismissed from the proceedings by the compensation judge without objection.
[3] See Herbst v. Jones Truck Lines, 59 W.C.D. 442, 444 (W.C.C.A. 1999); Skue v. Bergen’s Wholesale, Inc., slip op. (W.C.C.A. Jan. 9, 1998) (an order dismissing an employer and insurer based on lack of sufficient medical evidence is not an appealable order as it does not affect the merits of the case because the dismissal does not preclude joinder in the present action or a subsequent action for contribution or reimbursement).
[4] See Dahlquist v. Maxwell Graphics, 47 W.C.D. 424 (W.C.C.A. 1992).
[5] See Sandberg v. State, Dep’t of Human Servs., 76 W.C.D. 387 (W.C.C.A. 2016).