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 filed a complaint for benefits and subsequently objected to the Employer/Insurer's selection of, and change in, health care providers (HCPs). The complaint was pending before the Workers’ Compensation Administration (WCA) at the time of the objection to the change in HCPs.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION, Shanon Riley, Workers’ Compensation Judge: The WCA issued an order denying the Worker's objection to the Employer/Insurer's selection of, and change in, health care providers (HCPs).

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Contended that the order denying his objection to the Employer/Insurer's selection of, and change in, health care providers should be considered final and appealable. The Worker argued that the issues raised in his appeal involved substantial public interest, a substantial right, and were capable of repetition, yet evading review.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether an order regarding a change of healthcare provider is a final, appealable order when a claim for benefits is pending before the Workers’ Compensation Administration (WCA).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the Worker's appeal for lack of a final, appealable order.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring): The Court relied on existing case law, specifically Murphy v. Strata Prod. Co., to determine that an order regarding a change of healthcare provider is not a final, appealable order when a claim for benefits is pending before the WCA (para 2). The Court also noted that the collateral order doctrine does not apply to such orders because changes to HCPs can be reviewed on appeal from final compensation orders and are often intertwined with the progress and outcome of workers’ compensation cases (para 2). The Worker's argument that the issue involved substantial public interest and was capable of repetition, yet evading review, was not persuasive to the Court. The Court suggested that if the Worker wished to pursue the matter further, the appropriate remedy would be to seek a legislative change to authorize an immediate appeal in this context (para 4).