Determined by: Patricia J. Milun, Chief Judge
Attorneys: Pro Se Employee, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Ryan J. Courtney, Fitch, Johnson, Larson and Held, P.A., Roseville, Minnesota for Respondents.
Dismissed.
On February 19, 2020, a compensation judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an Order Compelling Discovery in the above matter. A hearing was held on March 31, 2020, regarding noncompliance with the order and the employer and insurer’s motion to strike the matter from the active calendar. On April 9, 2020, a compensation judge issued an order amending the earlier discovery order, requiring the employee to sign a limited medical release, as issued. That order also denied the employer and insurer’s motion to strike.
The employee filed an appeal of the April 9, 2020, order to the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals on May 7, 2020.[1] Under Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1, a party is permitted to appeal once there is “an award or disallowance of compensation, or other order affecting the merits of the case.” This is a jurisdictional requirement for taking an appeal to this court. The discovery order that is the subject of this appeal is not eligible for appeal. Mierau v. Alcon Industries, Inc., 386 N.W.2d 741, 38 W.C.D. 652 (Minn. 1986). As this is a jurisdictional issue, the court can address the issue of its own volition. Davidner v. Davidner, 304 Minn. 491, 493, 232 N.W.2d 5, 7 (1975); Thompson v. AT&T, slip op. (W.C.C.A. Dec. 21, 2000); Rhoades v. K & C Distrib., 51 W.C.D. 305, 321-22 (W.C.C.A. 1994). As this court has frequently stated, this rule is intended to avoid piecemeal appeals. The potential for harmful delay when interlocutory appeals are taken is present in this matter and supports dismissing this appeal without further proceedings.[2]
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the appeal of the employee filed May 7, 2020, is hereby DISMISSED, together with the Notice of Appeal filed on May 15, 2020.
[1] The employee did not pay the $25.00 filing fee required by Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 4(2).
[2] The employee filed a second notice of appeal on May 15, 2020, taken from the portion of the order issued in response to the employee’s in forma pauperis application. The Office of Administrative Hearings did not treat the matter as a new appeal, as the issue presented was whether the compensation judge erred in refusing to waive the $25.00 filing fee. As the failure to the pay the filing fee is an independent jurisdictional defect, there is no error in treating the second filing as part of the first appeal. Ferguson v. Ford Motor Co., slip op. (W.C.C.A. Aug. 20, 2001).