The self-insured employer appeals the compensation judge’s denial of its motion to dismiss the respondents’ claims for dependency benefits, medical expenses, and burial expenses.  We dismiss the appeal.

The employee, JoAnn Luther, died of stage IV metastatic adenocarcinoma of the lungs on August 9, 2015.  The personal representative of the employee’s estate, her daughter Trina Hofbauer, filed a “Claim Petition for Dependency Benefits or Payment to Estate” which asserted that the employee had died from an occupational disease.  The claim petition, received at the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry on September 25, 2017, sought dependency benefits, undetermined medical expenses, and burial expenses.  The employee’s death certificate was included with the claim petition.  No dependents were listed on the petition.  No workers’ compensation benefits had been paid to the employee or on the employee’s behalf related to an alleged August 9, 2015, date of injury.  The employer filed a first report of injury on September 26, 2017.

On March 14, 2018, the employer denied liability for the claim, asserting that the employee did not die from an occupational disease and that Ms. Hofbauer lacked standing to claim dependency benefits.  The employer also filed a motion to dismiss the claim petition based on lack of medical support.  The motion was withdrawn after the petitioner provided a medical report.

An amended claim petition dated August 19, 2019, named the employee’s husband, Tom H. Luther, and Ms. Hofbauer as petitioners and dependents.  The employer moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that the employee’s husband was the only appropriate dependent and that the amended claim petition was filed after the three-year statute of limitations had run.  On September 9, 2020, a hearing was held before a compensation judge on the employer’s motion to dismiss.  The judge denied the motion in an Order on Motion served and filed September 22, 2020.  The self-insured employer appeals.

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).

This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from “an award or disallowance of compensation, or other order affecting the merits of the case.”  Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1.  This court has previously held in a number of cases that a compensation judge’s order denying a motion to dismiss a claim petition does not affect the merits of the case and is not an appealable order.  See Brown v. North Mem’l Med. Ctr., 74 W.C.D. 471 (W.C.C.A. 2014); Lick v. State, Ah-Gwah-Ching Nursing Home, 40 W.C.D. 315, 316 (W.C.C.A. 1987); Medina v. Paymasters, Inc., No. WC19-6322 (W.C.C.A. May 15, 2020); Profit v. HRT Holding, No. WC19-6319 (W.C.C.A. Feb. 10, 2020); see also Mierau v. Alcon Indus., Inc., 386 N.W.2d 741, 38 W.C.D. 652 (Minn. 1986) (an order that does not affect the merits of the case or prevent a later determination on the merits is not appealable).

The employer’s appeal is dismissed.