*/
Workers’
Compensation Board
OPINION
ENTERED: September 2, 2016
CLAIM NO. 201464030
LEWIS ALLEN WILLIAMSON PETITIONER
VS. APPEAL FROM HON. JANE
RICE WILLIAMS,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY and
HON. JANE RICE WILLIAMS,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RESPONDENTS
OPINION
AND ORDER
DISMISSING
*
* * * * *
BEFORE: ALVEY, Chairman, STIVERS and RECHTER, Members.
ALVEY,
Chairman. Lewis Allen Williamson, pro se, (“Williamson”) seeks review of the order issued by
Hon. Jane Rice Williams, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) as reflected in the
Benefit Review Conference Order and Memorandum issued on June 8, 2016 in his
claim filed against Morehead State University (“Morehead”). The ALJ placed the claim in abeyance pending
the outcome of a civil action Williams had filed against Morehead. The ALJ also sustained Morehead’s motion to
join the Commonwealth of Kentucky as a defendant. Williamson subsequently filed a petition for
reconsideration. He later filed a motion
to compel a decision. Before the ALJ
could rule on either request, Williamson filed a Motion for “Workers Claims
Board Review RE: Constitutional Judicial Non-Prosecution”. He also filed a “Petition for Writ of
Mandamus” and a “Petition for permission to proceed in Forma Pauperis”. Morehead subsequently filed a motion to
dismiss the appeal on August 22, 2016, arguing it was taken from an
interlocutory decision.
Williamson filed a Form 102 on
December 12, 2014, alleging he sustained an occupational disease due to
exposure to asbestos while working at Morehead.
The claim was assigned to the Hon. Otto Daniel Wolff, IV, Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ Wolff”), by order dated December 21, 2015. Morehead filed a Form 111 denying the claim
on January 30, 2015. Williamson filed a
motion for extension of time on March 20, 2015, which ALJ Wolff granted by
order dated April 9, 2015. On April 1,
2015, Williamson moved to amend his claim to include diseases or conditions
other than asbestosis. This amendment
was granted by order issued April 15, 2015.
On April 23, 2015, Williamson’s attorney moved to withdraw as
counsel. This motion was granted on May
11, 2015.
Numerous motions, objections and
discovery requests were subsequently filed.
ALJ Wolff issued numerous rulings on those motions and objections.
On March 11, 2016, ALJ Wolff issued an
order which stated as follows:
1. The determination of the issues in this claim is bifurcated. The only issues to be
addressed and determined at this time is [sic] Plaintiff’s entitlement
to indemnity and medical benefits.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is OVERRULED.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Interlocutory Relief is OVERRULED.
4. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents is OVERRULED
to the extent set forth above.
5. Defendant’s
Motion for Extension of Time is OVERRULED.
6. Plaintiff’s
Motion to Retain and Deliver All Claim Records is OVERRULED.
7. Plaintiff’s
motion to Re-Depose Dr. Sikder was decided in the June 16, 2015 Order.
8. Plaintiff’s
Objection to Deposition of Dr. Cavallazzi is
OVERRULED.
9. Plaintiff’s
Motion to Require Testing was decided in the June 16, 2015 Order.
10. But only for good-faith extraordinary circumstances the above-act
proof-taking times and the scheduled BRC will not be altered.
11. Plaintiff
must make another good-faith effort to retain counsel.
In the same order, a benefit review
conference (“BRC”) was scheduled for June 7, 2016 at the Florence Hearing
site. On May 19, 2016, ALJ Wolff
reassigned the claim to the ALJ.
The BRC was actually held on June 8,
2016. At the BRC, the ALJ set aside ALJ
Wolff’s March 11, 2016 order, and placed the claim in abeyance “Pending Civil
Action.” She ordered status reports to
be filed every ninety days. The ALJ
sustained Morehead’s motion to join the Commonwealth of Kentucky as a
party. As noted above, Williamson filed
a petition for reconsideration, and subsequently a motion to compel a
ruling. He then filed an appeal before
the ALJ could rule on either.
Because we
conclude the ALJ’s June 8, 2016 ruling is interlocutory and does not represent
a final and appealable order, we dismiss this appeal.
803 KAR
25:010 Sec. 21 (2)(a) provides as follows:
[w]ithin thirty (30) days of the date
a final award, order, or decision rendered by an administrative law judge
pursuant to KRS 342.275(2) is filed, any party aggrieved by that award, order,
or decision may file a notice of appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Board.
803 KAR
25:010 Sec. 21 (2)(b) defines a final award, order or decision as follows: “[a]s used in this section, a final award,
order or decision shall be determined in accordance with Civil Rule 54.02(1)
and (2).”
Civil Rule
54.02(1) and (2) states as follows:
(1) When more than one claim for relief
is presented in an action . . . the court may grant a final judgment upon one
or more but less than all of the claims or parties only upon a determination
that there is no just reason for delay. The judgment shall recite such determination
and shall recite that the judgment is final. In the absence of such recital, any order or
other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates less than all the
claims or the rights and liabilities of less than all the parties shall not
terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other
form of decision is interlocutory and subject to revision at
any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the
rights and liabilities of all the parties.
(2) When the remaining claim or claims
in a multiple claim action are disposed of by judgment, that judgment shall be
deemed to readjudicate finally as of that date and in
the same terms all prior interlocutory orders and judgments
determining claims which are not specifically disposed of in such final
judgment.
Hence,
an order of an ALJ is appealable only if: 1) it terminates the action
itself; 2) acts to decide all matters litigated by the parties; and, 3)
operates to determine all the rights of the parties so as to divest the ALJ of
authority. Tube Turns Division vs.
Logsdon, 677 S.W.2d 897 (
After
reviewing the file, it is clear the June 8, 2016 order is interlocutory, and as
such
is not final and appealable as it does not operate to
terminate the action or finally decide all outstanding issues. Likewise, it does not operate to determine all
the rights of the parties so as to divest the ALJ once and for all of the
authority to decide the merits of the claim.
That said, the appeal filed by Williamson
is hereby dismissed, and the claim is remanded to the ALJ to conduct all
proceedings necessary for final adjudication of the claim. We additionally note we have no jurisdiction
to rule on a mandamus petition. We also
acknowledge Williamson’s petition to proceed in Forma Pauperis upon which again we must decline to issue a
ruling since we do not have jurisdiction of this claim. However, it is noted no filing fees or costs
are necessary for the filing of an appeal to this Board.
The motion to dismiss filed by
Morehead is acknowledged, but is MOOT
based upon the findings of this Board.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED the appeal seeking
review of the interlocutory order rendered June 8, 2016 by Hon. Jane Rice
Williams, Administrative Law Judge, is DISMISSED.
ALL
CONCUR.
____________________________
MICHAEL
W. ALVEY, CHAIRMAN
WORKERS’
COMPENSATION BOARD
PETITIONER:
LEWIS WILLIAMSON
1134 NATSCREEK ROAD
LOUISA, KY 41230
COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT:
HON BONNIE HOSKINS
PO BOX 24564
LEXINGTON, KY 40524
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE:
HON JANE RICE WILLIAMS
657 CHAMBERLIN AVENUE
FRANKFORT, KY 40601
