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

• Kenneth George Frisby, the Worker, appealed three separate orders from proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Administration. The appeals involved issues around judicial disqualification and the timeliness of appeals against orders dismissing claims against his prior counsel and other unspecified claims.

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration, Reginald C. Woodard, Workers’ Compensation Judge, January 15, 2014: Order entered.
• Workers’ Compensation Administration, October 8, 2013: Order entered dismissing all claims Worker was attempting to assert against his prior counsel.
• Workers’ Compensation Administration, October 30, 2009: Order entered.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that he was unaware of the issue he now raises at the time of the judicial disqualification he seeks to challenge. He also contended that he was informed by a clerk that there was no final order due to a pending court date, which led him to believe his appeal was timely.
• Employer/Insurer-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker’s appeal of the January 15, 2014, order should be affirmed due to failure to preserve the argument on appeal.
• Whether the Worker’s appeals of the orders entered on October 8, 2013, and October 30, 2009, should be dismissed as untimely.

Disposition

• The order entered on January 15, 2014, is affirmed.
• The appeals of the orders entered on October 8, 2013, and October 30, 2009, are dismissed as untimely.

Reasons

• VANZI, Judge, with RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge concurring, found that the Worker’s memorandum in opposition did not provide a persuasive argument to alter the proposed summary disposition. The Worker’s failure to raise the issue of judicial disqualification at the lower level and his reliance on incorrect information from a clerk did not warrant a different outcome. The Court emphasized that litigants cannot rely on court clerks for legal advice and must adhere to the rules and orders of the court. The Court also clarified that an order disposing of all claims against one of several defendants is considered a final order for purposes of appeal, leading to the dismissal of the Worker’s appeals as untimely (paras 1-6).