G & S Auto Sales v. WaltonG & S Auto Sales v. Walton
for the Court:
¶ 1. In this аppeal from a decision of the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Cоmmission (Commission), the employer/carrier, G & S Auto Sales (G & S), asks this Court to1 decide several issuеs. However, finding that this Court lacks jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal.
FACTS
¶ 2. Terrance Walton was employed by G & S as a mechaniс/parts puller, and while acting in the course and scope of his employment, he injured his right wrist, shoulder, and arm. So Terrance filed a petition to contrоvert with the Commission, claiming a work-related injury and requesting temporary disability benefits. An administrative judge (AJ) found that Terrance had proved that he sustained- a work-rеlated injury. Without determining the existence or extent of the temporary disability, thе AJ ordered G & S to pay Walton’s reasonable and necessary medicаl. expenses; G & S later filed a motion for authority to take an interlocutоry appeal of the AJ’s judgment, and in response, the Commission affirmed the decision of the
DISCUSSION
¶ 3. “In a workers’ compensation appeal, this Court’s standard of review is limited to a determination of whether substantial evidence supports the Commission’s dеcision.” Dep’t of Agric. & Commerce v. Austin,
¶ 4. In an order dated May 16, 2014, the • AJ stated:
Taking the evidence as a whole, I find that Walton has proven that he sustained a work-related injury on April 18, 2009, and injured his right upper extremity and back. The parties are instructed to provide additional evidenсe showing the existence and extent of temporary disability before such аn award may be made.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that [G & S] pay and provide compensation benefits to Walton as follows:
Pay for, furnish[,] and provide to Walton all reasonable and . necessary medical serviees and supplies as the nature of his injury or thе process of his recovery may require in accordance with Mississipрi] Code Ann[otated section] 71-3-15 [ (Supp.2015) ] and the Medical Fee Schedule.
¶ 5. Bеcause the extent of Terrance’s disability and the amount of his disability benefits wеre to be determined at a later date, the AJ’s judgment did not settle all of the issues between the parties and was not a final judgment. Acknowledging this lack of finality, G & S filed its motion for authority to take an interlocutory appeal. Without ruling on оr even addressing the motion, the Commission summarily affirmed the-AJ’s judgment, finding:
The above styled cause came on for consideration by the Commission in the offices of thе Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission in Jackson, Mississippi on [G & S’s] “Petition for Review[.]”[1 ]
Having thoroughly studied the record in this cause and the applicable law, the Commission affirms thе “Order of the Administrative Judge” dated May 16, 2014.
¶'6.. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Commission рroperly affirmed the AJ’s judgment, at most, the Commission could have only affirmed the AJ’s findings that (1) Terrance had sustained a work-related injury; (2) the parties needed to provide additional evidence of the existence and extent of his temрorary disability before an award could be made; and (3) G & S was required to pаy Terrance’s reasonable and. necessary medical expensеs. As such, the Commission’s ruling, like the AJ’s judgment, left certain issues unresolved, namely, whether Terrance’s in
¶ 7. To be clear, we do not address whether the Commission had a duty to dismiss G & S’s motion as interlocutory. We simply hold that because the AJ’s judgment was not a final judgmеnt that disposed of all of the issues between the parties, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Therefore, this case is dismissed.
¶ 8. THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
Notes
. The appellate record does not reveal that G & S filed a petition for review with the'Commission.