Jоhn and Susan Brookshire (“Plaintiffs”) brought a medical malpractice suit against some of John’s health care providers. 1 This appeal by Plaintiffs is from a judgment, purportedly entered pursuant to Rule 74.01(b), that allowed Snyder Construction (“Snyder”) and its workers’ compensation carrier, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“St.Paul”), to intervene in Plaintiffs’ suit. 2 Because the trial court lacked authority to certify its order as a final judgment under Rule *922 74.01(b), no final, appealable judgment exists; consequently, this court is without jurisdiсtion to consider the appeal. Appeal dismissed.
FACTS
John worked for Snyder when he was injured on the job, and subsequently, he received workers’ compensation benefits paid by St. Paul. 3 He was treated for this injury by Dr. Jacy Retz, Freemen Health System, and Staff Care, Inc. (“Defendants”). Plaintiffs sued Defendants and alleged they were negligent in their care and treatment of John while he was their patient, and as a result of this negligence, John suffered permanent brain damage. 4
Snyder and St. Paul sought to intervene in thе suit pursuant to section 287.150 and Rule 52.12(a), Supreme Court Rules (2002). 5 The court entered an order allowing intervention, via a dockеt entry. Plaintiffs then filed a motion that requested the court to certify the order as a final judgment under Rule 74.01(b), Supreme Court Rules (2002), “spеcifically determining the judgment entry does not dispose of any other claims or parties and making express determinatiоn there is no just reason for delay.” The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Plaintiffs allege that the trial сourt erred by granting Snyder’s and St. Paul’s motion to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 52.12(a). We cannot, however, address Plaintiffs’ claim because we lack jurisdiction to do so.
Although no party has questioned the trial court’s authority to certify its judgment as appealable under Rule 74.01(b), this court must determine its jurisdiction
sua sponte. Gibson v. Brewer,
To have jurisdiction, therе must be a final, appealable judgment, i.e., one resolving all the claims, issues, rights, and liabilities in a case.
Landmark American Ins. Co. v. Paccar, Inc.,
“When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action ... or when multiple parties are involved, thе court may enter a judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an exprеss determination that there is no just reason for delay.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The “express determination” by a judge that an order is final and appealable, however, is not conclusive.
Gibson,
The Rule 74.01(b) judgment must dispose of a distinct judicial unit, i.e., at least one claim for relief.
Id.; Educ. Equality,
The trial court attempted to finalize, for purрoses of appeal, an interlocutory order granting Snyder and St. Paul the right to intervene in Plaintiffs’ negligence suit. This is not a separate claim for relief or distinct judicial unit. It is merely an ancillary issue arising from Snyder’s and St. Paul’s actual claim under section 287.150, i.e., the right to proceed against a third-party tortfeasor to recover for payments made to John.
Under that stаtute, both the employer (Snyder) and the employee (John) are real parties in interest, and either could bring the suit against the third-party tortfeasor.
6
State ex rel. Mo. Highway, and Transp. Comm’n v. Copeland,
820 5.W.2d 80, 82-83 (Mo.App.1991). The “claim” of both Snyder and John is that the Defendants were negligent in rendering medical treatment.
Id.
at 84 (holding employer’s claim is derivative of employee’s claim). In order to be final, the judgment must resolve the aggregate of operative facts that give rise to a right which is enforceable in the courts.
Educ. Equality,
We note that the
denial
of intervention as a matter of right is appealable.
State ex rel. Reser v. Martin,
“Intervention permitted merely moves the causе forward on the merits with full right reserved at a future date for review on appeal. The decision to permit intervention is in fаct interlocutory as any original party adversely affected may appeal a judgment, if any, whereby the intervenоr obtains recovery on the merits.”
Id.
at 911.
7
The trial court cannot finalize that which is not considered “final.”
*924
Spiegel v. Trustees of Tufts College,
In this case, the claim fоr relief is the harm caused by the Defendants to John. That claim is unresolved. The
issue
of intervention by Snyder was the only thing determined by the trial court’s order. Accordingly, the trial court did not resolve a distinct judicial unit or claim for relief. Therefore, its attempt tо finalize the order pursuant to Rule 74.01(b) is unavailing, and this court is without jurisdiction.
Gibson,
The appeal is dismissed.
Notes
. When referring to John and Susan Brook-shire collectively, we call them "Plaintiffs,” but when referring to them individually, we shall use only their first names. We intend no disrespect.
. All rule references are tо Supreme Court Rules (2003), unless otherwise indicated.
. “The Workers’ Compensation Law” is contained in § 287.010 et seq., RSMo (2000). All statutory references are to this version of the laws.
. The suit was filed by John thrоugh Susan as his conservator and by Susan individually.
. Section 287.150 creates a subrogation interest for employers, in the amount of сompensation paid under the workers’ compensation law, when a third party is liable for the death or injury of an emрloyee, such as when a physician aggravates the original injury.
Farmer-Cummings v. Future Foam, Inc.,
. St. Paul, as the employer’s insurer, is henceforth included in any reference to Snyder. See § 287.030.2.
.
See also,
E.H. Schopler, Annotation,
Appeal-ability of Order Granting or Denying Right of Intervention,
. The
Spiegel
court examined the federal rule of civil procedure which Missouri adopted in 1988 almost verbatim as Rule 74.01(b).
Educ. Equality,