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 Santiago Melendrez, Jr., the Worker-Appellant, who appealed from an order denying his motions for reconsideration related to the final judgment entered on July 17, 2017, by the Workers' Compensation Administration (para 1).

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration, Reginald C. Woodward, Workers’ Compensation Judge: Final judgment entered on July 17, 2017, denying Worker's claims (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that the underlying proceedings and the final judgment were flawed and sought reconsideration of the final judgment (para 2).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: Supported the Court's notice of proposed summary disposition, which proposed to affirm the denial of the Worker's motions for reconsideration (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker-Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal regarding the order denying his motions for reconsideration (para 2).
• Whether the Worker-Appellant was entitled to relief under Rule 1-060(B) in his motions for reconsideration (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the order denying the Worker-Appellant's motions for reconsideration (para 5).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge concurring:
  The Court found that the Worker-Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal against the final judgment entered on July 17, 2017, which limited the scope of the appeal to the order denying his motions for reconsideration (para 2).
  The Court concluded that the Worker-Appellant did not demonstrate entitlement to relief under Rule 1-060(B) in his motions for reconsideration. The Worker's submissions did not address the Court's analysis or propose any new legal or factual arguments to challenge the proposed disposition (paras 2-3).
  The Court acknowledged an oversight in referring to the district court instead of the Workers' Compensation judge but determined it had no material effect on the proposed disposition (para 4).
  The Worker-Appellant's failure to meet the burden of pointing out errors in fact or law in the Court's notice of proposed summary disposition led to the affirmation of the denial of his motions for reconsideration (para 5).