SERGIO MEDINA, Employee/Respondent, v. PAYMASTERS, INC., and BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS WORKERS’ COMP. FUND/MACKINAW ADM’RS, LLC, (F/K/A MEADOWBROOK), Self-Insured Employer/Appellant, and JK IMAGING CORP., TWIN CITIES DIAGNOSTIC CTR., and TWIN CITIES PAIN MGMT., Intervenors.

The self-insured employer appeals an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss.  Because this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal, we dismiss the appeal and return the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings.

On March 12, 2018, Sergio Medina, the employee, sustained an admitted work injury to his low back, mid-back, neck, and right shoulder when he lifted a large mold while employed by Paymasters, Inc.  He began treating with a chiropractor the next day.  A few months later, in July 2018, the employee consulted with a physician at Twin Cities Pain Management and underwent an MRI scan at Twin Cities Diagnostic Center which was read by a physician at JK Imaging.  When the employer denied payment for treatment, the employee filed a claim petition requesting, in part, payment of medical expenses.  Twin Cities Pain Management, Twin Cities Diagnostic Center, and JK Imaging timely filed motions to intervene and were parties to the matter heard on April 18, 2019, before a compensation judge.

At that hearing, the employer briefly discussed raising a defense to payment involving application of Minn. Stat. § 256B.0644, but the issue was not litigated at the hearing.^[1]  The employer requested that the compensation judge indicate that any order for payment of medical expenses be payable pursuant to the medical fee schedule.

By Findings and Order of May 22, 2019, the compensation judge found that the medical treatment and diagnostics provided by the intervenors were reasonably required to cure and relieve the employee from the effects of the injuries of March 12, 2018.  She ordered the employer to “pay the intervention claims of Twin Cities Pain Management, Twin Cities Diagnostic Center, and JK Imaging pursuant to the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Schedule.”  Ex. 2, Order 3 (emphasis added).  Neither party appealed this decision.  The self-insured employer did not pay the intervenors’ bills.  Because the intervenors had not been paid pursuant to the findings and order, the employee filed a claim petition on June 6, 2019, seeking payment of the expenses ordered and an award of penalties for nonpayment.

The employer moved to dismiss the claim petition arguing that application of Minn. R. 5221.0500 and Minn. Stat. § 256B.0644 prohibited payment to the three intervenors and thereby the lack of payment did not violate the court’s order to pay pursuant to the fee schedule.  The matter came on for a special term hearing on September 9, 2019.  At issue was whether the judge had jurisdiction to decide the employer’s motion to dismiss the claim petition seeking payment pursuant to the May 22, 2019, Findings and Order and whether penalties should be awarded for failure to make timely payment.  The employer argued that the intervenors’ bills were not payable pursuant to the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Schedule, asserting that because the intervenors are not Medicaid or Medical Assistance providers pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 256B.0644, the limitation of payer liability in Minn. R. 5221.0500 prohibits payment of medical expenses to those intervenors.

By Order on Motion, the compensation judge found that she no longer had jurisdiction over the Findings and Order served and filed on May 22, 2019, but had jurisdiction over the present motion to dismiss the claim petition based on interpretation of the phrase “pursuant to the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Schedule.”  She found that Minn. R. 5221.0500 and its reference to Minn. Stat. § 256B.0644 are not part of the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Schedule.  Therefore, the judge concluded that payment of the medical bills in the current claim petition was not prohibited by the medical fee schedule, denied the employer’s motion to dismiss, and ordered an evidentiary hearing.  The employer appeals.

An appellate court may raise and determine jurisdiction on its own motion.  See, e.g., Davidner v. Davidner, 304 Minn. 491, 493, 232 N.W.2d 5, 7 (1975); Rhoades v. K & C Distrib., 51 W.C.D. 305, 321 (W.C.C.A. 1994), summarily aff’d (Minn. Aug. 3, 1994).  This court has jurisdiction over appeals from an award or disallowance of compensation or other orders “affecting the merits of the case.”  Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1 (emphasis added); see Mierau v. Alcon Indus., Inc., 386 N.W.2d 741, 742, 38 W.C.D. 652, 653 (Minn. 1986).  As a general rule, only a decision which finally determines the parties’ rights and concludes the action is appealable.  Zizak v. Despatch Indus., Inc., 427 N.W.2d 755, 756 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).  “An order denying a motion to dismiss does not affect the merits of a case.  The action is simply reserved for trial.”  Lick v. State, Ah-Gwah-Ching Nursing Home, 40 W.C.D. 315, 316 (W.C.C.A. 1987) (denial of motion to dismiss is not appealable).

In this case, the order appealed from was not a final decision on the merits.  See Profit v. HRT Holding, No. WC19-6319 (W.C.C.A. Feb. 10, 2020).  The compensation judge has ordered an evidentiary hearing to be scheduled.  As the order denying the motion to dismiss was not a final decision on the merits, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the self-insured employer’s appeal.  We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and return the matter to the compensation judge.