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, acting pro se, sought to appeal various orders issued by the Workers' Compensation Administration (WCA) spanning from March 12, 2010, to July 12, 2012. The appeal focused on the Worker's dissatisfaction with the original compensation order issued in March 2010 and subsequent orders, including a memorandum opinion that dismissed the Worker's latest complaint for not making a sufficient allegation to reopen his case. This dismissal was based on the complaint's relation to the Worker's ongoing dissatisfaction with the March 2010 compensation order.

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration, Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge: Issued a series of orders from March 12, 2010, to July 12, 2012, culminating in a memorandum opinion that quashed the Worker's most recent workers’ compensation complaint for insufficient allegations to reopen the case.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the series of WCA orders, particularly the March 2010 compensation order, were unsatisfactory and sought to reopen his case.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellee: The specific arguments of the Employer/Insurer-Appellee are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker's appeal of the WCA's orders, including the memorandum opinion filed on July 12, 2012, was timely filed.
• Whether the Worker's dissatisfaction with the March 2010 compensation order provided sufficient grounds to reopen his case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the Worker's appeal for being untimely filed.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with James J. Wechsler and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, the Court found that to invoke its jurisdiction, a party must comply with appellate rules regarding the timing and filing of an appeal. The Worker's notice of appeal was filed beyond the 30-day limit set by the Rules of Appellate Procedure, making it untimely. The Worker's pro se status did not exempt him from these requirements. The Court also noted that the Worker did not present any exceptional circumstances that would justify overlooking the procedural defect of filing the appeal late. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Worker's appeal due to the lack of jurisdiction over an untimely appeal.