MEMORANDUM DECISION
This matter is before the court on three motions for summary disposition: the court’s sua sponte motion, the Employers’ Reinsurance Fund’s motion and the Workers’ Compensation Fund’s motion. The Employers’ Reinsurance Fund and the Workers’ Compensation Fund both move to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it was not timely filed. Petitioner concedes that the appeal should be dismissed, but urges the court to dismiss the appeal due to lack of a final order.
The Industrial Commission’s order from which this appeal is taken adopts the Administrative Law Judge’s (A.L.J.) findings of fact but remands for a determination of whether petitioner should receive his medical expenses relating to his 1985 injury. Thus, the dispositive issue is whether the Commission’s order is a final appealable order.
Generally, “[a]n appeal can be taken only from entry of a final judgment which wholly disposes of a claim against a party.”
Hase v. Hase,
In several jurisdictions courts have recognized that generally remand orders in administrative proceedings are not final ap-pealable orders.
1
We agree that an order of the agency is not final so long as it reserves something to the agency for further decision.
See Maryland Comm’n on
*465
Human Relations v. Baltimore Gas & Elec.,
The order in the present case remands to the A.L.J. for a determination of whether petitioner should receive his medical expenses relating to his 1985 injury. Because the order reserves something further for the agency to determine, we hold that the order of the Commission is not a final appealable order. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction in accordance with R.Utah Ct.App. 10(a)(1). Because we dismiss the appeal due to lack of a final order, we need not address whether the appeal was timely filed.
All concur.
Notes
.
Newpark Shipbuilding & Repair, Inc. v. Roundtree,
