APPEALS – INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. This court dismisses the appeal from the compensation judge’s order denying the employer and insurer’s motion to dismiss because it did not conclude the action nor affect the merits of the case.
Compensation Judge: Kristina B. Lund
Attorneys: Mary Beth Boyce, Schmidt & Salita, PLLC, Minnetonka, Minnesota, for the Respondent. Jerome D. Feriancek, Trial Group North, Duluth, Minnesota, for the Appellants.
Dismissed.
DEBORAH K. SUNDQUIST, Judge
The employer and insurer appeal the compensation judge’s Order Denying Motion to Dismiss. As the order is not a final determination of the issues and does not affect the merits of the case, we dismiss the appeal and refer the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Ronald Brand, the employee, has worked as an over-the-road truck driver for the employer, United Road Service, since 1998. The employer is headquartered in Michigan and payroll checks are issued in Michigan. The home terminal and dispatch center are located in Indiana, and there are no terminals in Minnesota. The employee did not pick up or drop off loads in Minnesota, nor are there customers in Minnesota. The employment activity that took place in Minnesota was limited to pre-trip and post-trip inspections which occurred at the employee’s home in Minnesota. While in Wisconsin driving his truck on March 27, 2020, the employee collided with another vehicle and suffered injuries. Under Indiana law, the employer paid workers’ compensation benefits to the employee. On July 1, 2020, the employee filed a claim petition seeking workers’ compensation benefits under Minnesota law.
The employer and its insurer, ESIS/Broadspire, moved for dismissal citing a lack of Minnesota jurisdiction under Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subd. 2. Attached to the motion to dismiss were the employee’s driver logbooks, vehicle inspection history, and the application of employment which documented activities occurring in several states, but not in Minnesota. The employee objected to the motion to dismiss and testified by affidavit that he lived in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota, that the employer had asked him to park his truck at his home in Sauk Rapids between jobs, and that a primary duty of his employment as a trucker was to perform pre-trip and post-trip inspections of the truck, many of which took place in Minnesota.
The employer and insurer’s motion to dismiss was considered by a compensation judge on September 28, 2020, and an Order Denying Motion to Dismiss was issued on September 30, 2020. The judge made no findings of fact, but in the memorandum explained the basis for the denial. The judge determined that driving and truck inspections were primary duties of the employee’s employment. Because the employee was asked by the employer to store his truck at home in Minnesota, his driving trips began and ended in Minnesota and his inspections were conducted in Minnesota. As such, the judge concluded that “dismissal is not appropriate at this time.” (Mem. at 2.)
The employer and insurer appeal.
On appeal, the employer argues that the judge erred as a matter of law in determining that the employee regularly performed primary duties in Minnesota, thereby conferring jurisdiction for the employee’s out-of-state injury. We dismiss the appeal.
Following the filing of the claim petition seeking benefits in Minnesota, the employer and insurer moved to dismiss the employee’s claims, arguing lack of jurisdiction. A hearing took place and the parties offered evidence. There was no testimony given other than the employee’s affidavit. The judge denied the motion, stating that “dismissal is not appropriate at this time.” (Mem. at 2.) The judge made no findings on the issue of jurisdiction, and made no final determination of the rights of the parties. The judge’s order did not conclude the action, but merely determined that dismissal of the action was not appropriate.
Appeals to this court can be taken from “an award or disallowance of compensation, or other order affecting the merits of the case.” Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1. In this case, the September 30, 2020, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss does not conclude the action initiated by the claim petition, nor does it affect the merits of the case. See Mierau v. Alcon Indus., Inc., 386 N.W.2d 741, 38 W.C.D. 652 (Minn. 1986). The case is simply reserved for trial. See Thompson v. AT&T, slip op. (W.C.C.A. Dec. 21, 2000). We therefore dismiss the employer and insurer’s appeal, and refer the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings.