AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Worker-Appellant, Ronnie Gomez, filed a workers' compensation claim against Wal-Mart Stores and American Home Insurance, alleging issues that led to a legal dispute. The case involved applications for modification of a compensation order, with the Worker submitting complaints that were deemed redundant of prior adjudicated matters.

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration, Gregory D. Griego, District Judge, September 21, 2012: The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) issued an order that was later challenged by the Worker as being final and appealable.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that court error in not receiving "paperwork" in a timely fashion prevented the filing of a timely notice of appeal. Asserted that exceptional circumstances warranted the Court to entertain the untimely notice of appeal.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the July 12, 2012, order was a final appealable order and if the Worker’s notice of appeal was untimely filed.
• Whether the Worker’s application for modification of compensation order was redundant of prior adjudicated matters and if it warranted reopening the case for review.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jonathan B. Sutin, James J. Wechsler, and Timothy L. Garcia, concluded that the July 12, 2012, order was final and appealable, and the Worker's notice of appeal was untimely filed. The Court found that the September 21, 2012, order did not alter or moot the decision contained in the July 12 order, and there was no new complaint after the July 12 order that prompted the September 21 order. The Worker did not point out any specific error in fact or law regarding the proposed disposition. The Court also noted that the Worker was mailed copies of the July 12 order, dismissing the argument of court error leading to the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Furthermore, the Court found no new meaningful content or evidence in the Worker's application that warranted further processing, affirming the WCJ’s order and dismissing the appeal based on the Worker's failure to appeal from the order within the mandated timeframe. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the WCJ’s determination that the Worker’s application was insufficient to warrant review, as it was merely redundant of prior adjudicated matters.