This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 LOUIS WIGLEY, 2 Worker-Appellant, 3 v. No. A-1-CA-36073 4

SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION 5 and SEDGWICK CMS, 6 Employer/Insurer-Appellees. 7 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 8 Leonard J. Padilla, Work ers’ Compensation Judge 9 Michael J. Doyle 10 Los Lunas, NM 11 for Appellant 12 Allen, Shepherd, Lewis & Syra, P.A. 13 Jonathan Elms 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellees 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 HANISEE, Judge. 18 {1} Worker seeks to appealfrom the workers’ comp ensation administration’s 19 compensation order, which resolves issues relating to Worker’s right-shoulder injury. 202 [RP 174] We proposed summary dismissal for l ack of a final order. Worker has filed 1 a memorandum in opposition to our notice of proposed summary disposition. 2 Unpersuaded, we dismiss for lack of a final order. 3 {2} Our notice explained that while the compensation order resolved benefits 4 relating to Worker’s right-shoulder injury, it does not resolve claims relating to two 5 allegedly related injuries—one to Worker’s left shoulder and one for secondary mental 6 impairment. [RP 82, 100-01, 116, 126, 175] Specifically, the compensation order 7 provides that Worker is entitled to a psychol ogical evaluation as well as an orthopedic 8 evaluation of his left shoulder “for causation and possible treatment.” [RP 177] 9 Because of the outstanding evaluations and th e potential impact on Worker’s benefits, 10 we proposed to dismiss for lack of a final order. 11 {3} In response, Worker argues that the compensation order is final because it 12 disposed of all issues between the parties and raised in the complaint. [MIO 1-2] We 13 acknowledge that Worker’s two allegedly related injuries were not specifically 14 mentioned in the complaint. [RP 1-2] Howe ver, issues relating to the injuries were 15 raised during the proceedings, [see RP 82] and Employer was uns uccessful in moving 16 the workers’ compensation judge to dismi ss the claims. [RP 107-08, 111] It is well17 settled that “the term ‘finality[,]’ is to begiven a practical, rather than a technical, 18 construction.” Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison , 1992-NMSC-005, ¶ 15, 113 N.M. 193 231, 824 P.2d 1033. In other word s, “to determine whether a judgment is final, the 1 court must look to its substance and not its form.” Id. Accordingly, we are 2 unpersuaded by Worker’s argument that all issues were fully resolved. 3 {4} In light of our strong policy of avoiding piecemeal appeals, see generally 4 Murphy v. Strata Prod. Co. , 2006-NMCA-008, ¶ 7, 138 N.M. 809, 126 P.3d 1173 5 (observing that “piecemeal appeals are disfavored; [and] fragmentation of issues is to 6 be avoided”), we are of the opinion that it would be both inappropriate and imprudent 7 to hear an immediate appealfrom the compensation order atthis time. To the extent 8 that Worker is concerned that the outst anding evaluations may not result in any 9 changes to the compensation order and he may lose his right to appeal, [MIO 3-6] we 10 point out that the law of the case doctrin e would apply to this Court’s conclusion 11 regarding finality. See State ex rel. King v. UU Bar Ranch Ltd. P’ship , 12 2009-NMSC-010, ¶ 21, 145 N.M. 769, 205 P.3d 816 (providing that “a decision by 13 an appeals court on an issue of law made in one stage of a lawsuit becomes binding 14 on subsequent trial courts as well as subs equent appeals courts during the course of 15 that litigation). Hence, Worker is entitled to appeal once the issues arising from the 16 related injuries have been resolved. 17 {5} For the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed summary disposition and 18 in this opinion, we dismiss. 194 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

_____________________________ 2 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 3

WE CONCUR: 4

__________________________________ 5 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 6

__________________________________ 7 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 8