APPEALS - INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. The compensation judge’s order denying a motion to dismiss a claim petition is not appealable as the order did not constitute a final decision on the merits.
Compensation Judge: Radd M. Kulseth
Attorneys: Aaron W. Ferguson, Aaron Ferguson Law, Roseville, Minnesota, for the Respondent. Matthew D. Davis, Law Office of Edward J. Kozel, Chicago, Illinois, for the Appellants.
Dismissed.
DEBORAH K. SUNDQUIST, Judge
The employer and insurer appeal from an interlocutory order denying their motion to dismiss. Because the order does not affect the merits of the case, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
On August 16, 2018, Deangelo Profit, the employee, filed a claim petition for workers’ compensation benefits due to an injury suffered when an assailant attacked him while he was working for his employer, Doubletree Suites. On December 14, 2018, the employer and its insurer, Valley Forge Insurance Company, moved for dismissal on the grounds that the injury did not qualify as a personal injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act, arguing that the injury was caused by the act of a third person intending to injure the employee and not directed against the employee as an employee or because of the employment. Minn. Stat. § 176.011, subd. 16. The motion was heard by a compensation judge, and on August 26, 2019, the judge denied the motion to dismiss. Concluding that dismissal was not permitted unless the parties agreed to stipulated facts,[1] the judge noted that several facts remained unresolved, thereby requiring a full evidentiary hearing. The employer and insurer appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss.
An appellate court may raise and determine jurisdiction on its own motion, even though none of the parties raised the issue. 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, 321-22 (W.C.C.A. 1994). In this matter, neither party raised the issue of whether this court has jurisdiction to address a compensation judge’s denial of a party’s motion to dismiss. Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1, grants this court jurisdiction over appeals from an award or disallowance of compensation, or other order affecting the merits of the case. (Emphasis added.) See generally Mierau v. Alcon Indus., Inc., 386 N.W.2d 741, 38 W.C.D. 652 (Minn. 1986). As a general rule, only an order which finally determines rights of the parties 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 the 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) (holding denial of motion to dismiss is not appealable).
Here, the order appealed from was not a final decision on the merits. The compensation judge explained that there were facts in dispute which required a full hearing. As the order was not a final decision on the merits, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. We, therefore, dismiss the employer and insurer’s appeal.