WILMER CASTILLO, Employee/Appellant, v. LOMA BONITA SUPERMERCADO and AMTRUST N. AM., Employer-Insurer/Respondents.

The employee appeals from a compensation judge’s dismissal of a request for formal hearing.  The compensation judge’s dismissal order is not an appealable order.  We dismiss the appeal.

The decision of this court is based upon the record which the parties had an opportunity to examine and verify.^[1]  The verified record received by this court from the Workers’ Compensation Division of the Office of Administrative Hearings includes only: (1) the employee’s request for formal hearing; (2) an order dismissing the employee’s request for formal hearing; (3) the employee’s motion for reconsideration and recission of the dismissal of the request for formal hearing; (4) the employee’s notice of appeal; and (5) an order dismissing the employee’s motion for reconsideration and recission.  Because the case originated from an administrative conference, this court did not receive, and cannot review, the employer and insurer’s request for assistance or the employee’s response.  No transcript was made of the administrative conference held on August 6, 2024.

The employee, Wilmer Castillo, sustained a work injury on July 7, 2023, while employed by Loma Bonito Supermercado, the employer.  The employer was insured for workers’ compensation liability by AmTrust North America.  On November 2, 2023, the employee retained counsel for his workers’ compensation matter and a notice of representation was served and filed with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry.

Subsequently, the employee attended an independent medical examination at the request of the employer and insurer, from which a report was issued.  Based on the contents of the report, the employer and insurer filed a request for assistance on July 8, 2024, seeking to terminate the employee’s rehabilitation plan.

An administrative conference was held before Compensation Judge Lisa B. Pearson on August 6, 2024, on the employer and insurer’s request for assistance pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.106.  At the time of the administrative conference, the employee was represented by his initial attorney.

Compensation Judge Pearson issued her administrative conference decision granting the employer and insurer’s request to terminate the employee’s rehabilitation plan on September 4, 2024.  On October 7, 2024, Attorney Aaron Ferguson, now representing the employee in his workers’ compensation matter, filed a request for formal hearing asserting that the employee was qualified for rehabilitation benefits, that he had ongoing issues with his knee and ankle, and that he had a denied knee claim and an accepted ankle claim.

Compensation Judge Kenneth Kimber issued an order dismissing the employee’s request for formal hearing on October 8, 2024.  The compensation judge based his dismissal on Minn. Stat. § 176.106, subd. 7, which provides that any “party aggrieved by the decision of the … compensation judge may request a formal de novo hearing by filing the request at the office and serving the request on all parties no later than 30 days after the decision.”

On October 18, 2024, the employee filed a motion for reconsideration and recission of the October 8, 2024, order dismissing the request for formal hearing claiming that the employee did not receive proper notice of the September 4, 2024, decision.^[2]  Before a determination on the motion was made, the employee filed a notice of appeal to this court from the order dismissing the employee’s request for formal hearing.^[3]

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).

On appeal, the employee argues that he should not be deprived of a hearing on the merits due to a lack of notice that an administrative order had been issued.  He requests that this court deem his request for formal hearing timely and remand the matter for a formal hearing, or in the alternative, grant the employee’s motion for referral to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.  We are not persuaded by the arguments and conclude this court does not have jurisdiction to rule on this interlocutory order.

The jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (W.C.C.A.) is statutory.  In reviewing the jurisdiction of this court, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that appeals to the W.C.C.A. can only be taken from “an award or disallowance of compensation, or other order, affecting the merits of the case.”  Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1; see Mierau v. Alcon Indus., Inc., 386 N.W.2d 741, 38 W.C.D. 652 (Minn. 1986) (discussing appealable orders).  Only orders which determine the final rights of the parties and conclude the action are appealable.  Zizak v. Despatch Indus., Inc., 427 N.W.2d 755, 756 (Minn. App. 1988).  The policy behind this ruling is to prevent piecemeal appeals and to protect the rights of all parties until all claims have been adjudicated in the trial court.  Johnson v. Johnson, 363 N.W.2d 355, 357 (Minn. App. 1985) (citing Comment, Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. May 6, 1985).

An administrative conference is “a meeting conducted by a commissioner’s designee or a compensation judge where parties can discuss on an expedited basis and in an informal setting their viewpoints concerning disputed issues arising under section 176.102, 176.103, 176.135, 176.136 or 176.239.”  Minn. Stat. § 176.011, subd. 1a.  An administrative conference is not the equivalent of an evidentiary hearing, and this court is not able to review decisions issued after administrative conferences because there is no formal evidentiary record of those proceedings.  See, e.g., Alberts v. Midwest Nat’l, 57 W.C.D. 189 (W.C.C.A. 1997); Bild v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 625, slip op. (W.C.C.A. Apr. 23, 1999).  Any party aggrieved by the decision of the commissioner’s designee under Minn. Stat. § 176.106, may request a de novo hearing before a compensation judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) no later than 30 days after the decision.  See Minn. Stat. § 176.106, subd. 7.  The request must also state what issues are in dispute.  See Minn. R. 5220.1010.

It has long been held that the 30-day period for filing a request for formal hearing following an administrative conference decision is a jurisdictional requirement and failure to properly file the request within the time period precludes de novo review.  See, e.g., Rosendahl v. P.B. Distrib., Inc., No. WC07-276 (W.C.C.A. June 24, 2008); Bostrom v. Minn. Fabrics, slip op. (W.C.C.A. Mar. 20, 1992); cf. Bjerga v. Maislin Transport, 400 N.W. 2d 99, 39 W.C.D. 309 (Minn. 1987) (untimely filing of appeal from workers’ compensation rehabilitation review panel defeats jurisdiction).  The employee’s request for formal hearing indicated that the administrative conference decision was served and filed on September 4, 2024.  The request for formal hearing was signed and dated October 7, 2024.  The employee did not assert improper service as a reason for the request for formal hearing.  This was beyond the 30-day time period required by the statute and therefore jurisdiction was not conferred to OAH for a de novo hearing.  See Adika v. ABM Janitorial Servs., No. WC20-6388 (W.C.C.A. May 21, 2021).

The order dismissing the request for formal hearing is an interlocutory order^[4] which is not appealable.  Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1, parties may appeal to this court from “an order or disallowance of compensation or other order affecting the merits of the case.”  This court has long held that “[a]n order of dismissal without prejudice does not affect the merits of the case” and does not prevent a later determination of the employee’s claim for rehabilitation services.  Dahlquist v. Maxwell Graphics, 47 W.C.D. 424, 427 (W.C.C.A. 1992).  Accordingly, we find that the compensation judge’s dismissal is not an appealable order and that this court lacks jurisdiction to review it.  The employee’s appeal is therefore dismissed.

The employee argues that the interests of justice require that this court refer the case to the chief administrative law judge at OAH for factual determinations regarding service and access to the employee’s file at DOLI and OAH by his current counsel.  The W.C.C.A. is controlled by statute and governed by the construction and application of the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA).  See Minn. Stat. § 175A.01, subd. 5.  Within the class of cases “arising under” the WCA, this court’s powers are plenary.  The court may hear and determine “all questions of law and fact” in any case appealed to us within that class.  Id.; see also Hagen v. Venem, 366 N.W.2d 280, 283, 37 W.C.D. 674, 678 (Minn. 1985).  This court is not a court of equity.  We have no power to formulate equitable remedies.  Cooper v. Younkin, 339 N.W.2d 552, 554, 36 W.C.D. 277, 279 (Minn. 1983).  Therefore, we will not address this argument.

In his brief, the employee also argues that the compensation judge violated the employee’s equal protection and due process rights under the Minnesota Constitution.  The employee acknowledges that this court lacks jurisdiction to determine constitutional questions or to fashion an equitable remedy outside the parameters of the WCA.  See Quam v. State, Minn. Zoological Gardens, 391 N.W.2d 803, 39 W.C.D. 32 (Minn. 1986); See also Minn. Stat. § 175A.01, subd. 5 (The W.C.C.A. shall have “no jurisdiction in any case that does not arise under the workers’ compensation laws of the state”).  Since this court does not have statutory authority to address the constitutional arguments, we will not address them.