In a recent decision, Castillo v. Loma Bonita Supermercado, No. WC24-6590 (W.C.C.A. April 1, 2025), the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal of an administrative judge’s Dismissal of a Request for Formal Hearing for lack of jurisdiction, as the order was an interim/temporary order and did not affect the merits of the case.
In this case, the employee sustained a work-related injury. He retained counsel, who served and filed notice of representation with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. The employee then attended an independent medical examination, at the request of the employer and insurer, resulting in an opinion that provided a basis for the employer/insurer to file a request for assistance to terminate the employee’s rehabilitation plan. An administrative conference was held on August 6, 2024, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.106. As this was an administrative conference, no transcript was made. Judge Pearson issued her decision granting the employer/insurer’s request to terminate the rehabilitation plan on September 4, 2024, issuing a copy to the employee through counsel.
The employee then retained new counsel, who filed a request for a formal hearing on October 7, 2024, thirty-three days (33) after Judge Pearson’s decision was issued. In his request, the employee did not raise the issue of untimely service. Judge Kimber subsequently issued an order dismissing the employee’s request for a formal hearing, citing Minn. Stat. § 176.106, subd. 7. This statute provides that the aggrieved may request a formal de novo hearing by filing a request with all parties no later than 30 days after the decision.
In response, the employee filed a motion for reconsideration and recission, alleging he did not receive proper notice of the September 4, 2024, decision. Before Judge Kimber could issue a determination on the motion, the employee filed a Notice of Appeal from the order dismissing the employee’s request for a formal hearing.
On appeal, the Employee argued he should not be deprived of a hearing on the merits due to a lack of notice of the administrative order, or in the alternative, the W.C.C.A. should grant the Employee’s motion for referral to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
The Court, however, was unconvinced. They highlighted that appeals to the W.C.C.A. can only be taken from an award or disallowance of compensation, or other order, affecting the merits of the case. That an order of dismissal, without prejudice, does not affect the merits of the case. The policy behind this ruling is to prevent piecemeal appeals and to protect the rights of all parties until all claims have been adjudicated in the trial court.
They explained that an administrative conference is a method for discussing, on an expedited basis, viewpoints concerning disputed issues. However, they emphasized that an administrative conference is not equivalent to an evidentiary hearing. Additionally, they noted that this Court cannot review decisions after administrative conferences are completed because there is no formal evidentiary record of those proceedings. As for appealing an administrative decision and requesting a de novo hearing, that means already exists in Minn. Stat. § 176.106.
The Court emphasizes that it has long been held that the 30-day period of filing a request for a formal hearing is a jurisdiction requirement, and failure to properly file the request within that time period precludes a de novo review. They also note that the request must clearly state the issues being disputed.
In this case, the Employee’s filing was beyond the 30-day period as required by statute, did not allege improper service, and therefore, jurisdiction was not conferred to OAH for a de novo hearing. The order dismissing the request for a formal hearing is interlocutory, meaning it is interim and temporary, and does not constitute a final resolution of the entire controversy. Since Judge Kimber’s order was not an order affecting the merits of the case, and did not prevent a later determination of the Employee’s claim for rehabilitation services, the judge’s dismissal was not an appealable order, and the W.C.C.A. lacked jurisdiction to review it. Thus, the employee’s appeal was dismissed.
In addition to the employee’s primary arguments, he also appealed to the W.C.C.A for an equitable remedy, proposing referral to the chief administrative law judge at OAH for factual determinations regarding service and access to the Employee’s file at DOLI and OAH by his counsel. The Court, however, stated that they are not a court of equity and has no power to formulate equitable remedies. As a last-ditch effort, the employee also alleged a violation of the Employee’s equal protection and due process rights. Again, the WCCA notes it does not have statutory authority to address such arguments and highlights that the employee conceded the same in his brief.
The takeaway from this case is the deadline of 30 days to request a formal de novo hearing as outlined in Minn. Stat. § 176.106 subd. 7 is a non-negotiable deadline. Not only must you file a request within the allotted period, but the aggrieved party must also list all issues being disputed.
The above case was successfully defended by Brown and Carlson’s Tracy Borash and Kali Russen. Each year, Brown and Carlson proudly presents our “Minnesota Workers’ Compensation 101” seminar—an essential resource for both current and prospective clients. This dynamic presentation is also available on demand, led by our experienced and knowledgeable professionals. Attendees gain critical insights into the complexities of Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Statutes, key deadlines, and the serious consequences of noncompliance. Empower your team with the knowledge to navigate claims confidently and avoid costly mistakes.