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 case involves an appeal by the Employer/Insurer against the Workers’ Compensation Administration’s (WCA) order awarding supplemental compensation to the Worker-Appellee (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Administration, Shanon Riley, Workers’ Compensation Judge, January 10, 2017.

Parties' Submissions

• Employer/Insurer: Argued that the notice of appeal was mistakenly filed with the WCA instead of the Court of Appeals but contended that this error was inadvertent and did not prejudice the Worker-Appellee's rights. They requested the Court to exercise its discretion to consider the merits of the appeal despite the procedural discrepancy (para 3).
• Worker-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals should dismiss the Employer/Insurer’s appeal due to the lack of a timely notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the Employer/Insurer’s appeal for lack of a timely notice of appeal (para 6).

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, and Linda M. Vanzi, Judge, concurring): The Court issued a notice of proposed disposition to dismiss the appeal due to the untimely filing of the notice of appeal, which was not filed with the Court of Appeals until October 12, 2016, despite the WCA's order being filed on August 19, 2016. The Employer/Insurer acknowledged the mistake but argued for the appeal to be considered on its merits, citing a preference for resolving appeals on their merits rather than on technical deficiencies. However, the Court distinguished between technical deficiencies and failures to adhere to the time and place of filing requirements, the latter being considered a failure to properly invoke the Court's jurisdiction. The Court found no unusual circumstances that would warrant overlooking the procedural defect of the untimely appeal, such as court error, and therefore dismissed the appeal (paras 2-6).