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 compensation complaint seeking various benefits due to an accidental work injury that occurred on March 4, 2010, in Tustin, California. The Employer generally denied the Worker's entitlement to workers' compensation benefits, and the Insurer also denied the claim, raising several affirmative defenses including that the Worker was not injured on the job, the Worker is not disabled, and the employment was not principally localized in New Mexico, among others (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellee: Argued for entitlement to temporary total disability benefits, permanent partial disability benefits, medical benefits, attorney fees, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest due to an accidental work injury.
• Employer-Appellee: Generally denied that the Worker is entitled to workers' compensation benefits.
• Insurer-Appellant: Raised affirmative defenses including that the Worker was not injured on the job, is not disabled, did not have healthcare provider authorization, the statute of limitations bars weekly compensation benefits, a causal link between disability and accident has not been shown, and the Worker's employment was not principally localized in New Mexico (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker is entitled to workers' compensation benefits under the extra-territorial provision of the Workers' Compensation Act for an accident that occurred in Tustin, California (para 1).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction as the order appealed from was not a final order (para 11).

Reasons

• MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, with JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring: The Court of Appeals concluded it had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal because the order from the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) was not a final order. The WCJ's order determined the Worker is entitled to benefits under the extra-territorial provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act but deferred all other issues, making the order not final. The Court also declined to apply the collateral order doctrine as no petition for a writ of error was filed, and the doctrine is disfavored and limited to prevent piecemeal appeals. The order from the WCJ concluding that the Worker is entitled to benefits under the extra-territorial provisions is reviewable on direct appeal from any final compensation order following a trial on the merits, thus not satisfying the requirements for the collateral order doctrine (paras 6-11).