This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 RONNIE GOMEZ, 2 Worker-Appellant, 3 v. No. 32,418 4 WAL-MART STORES and 5 AMERICAN HOME INSURANCE, 6 Employer/Insurer-Appellee. 7 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 8 Gregory D. Griego, District Judge 9 Ronnie Gomez 10 Los Lunas, NM 11 Pro Se Appellant 12 Hoffman Kelley LLP 13 Jeffrey L Federspiel 14 McKinney, TX 15 for Appellee 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 SUTIN, Judge. 182 Worker-Appellant Ronnie Gomez (Worker) appeals from the workers’ 1 compensation judge’s (the WCJ’s) order filed September 21, 2012. [RP 514] This 2 Court’s notice of proposed summary disposition proposed to dismiss the appeal as 3 untimely or in the alternative to affirm the WCJ’s order. Worker filed a memorandum 4 in opposition to the proposed disposition. We are not persuaded by Worker’s 5 arguments and dismiss the appeal. 6 This Court’s notice proposed to concludethat the July 12, 2012, order was a 7 final appealable order, and Worker’s notice of appeal was untimely filed. Cf. San 8 Juan 1990-A., L.P. v. El Paso Prod. Co. , 2002-NMCA-041, ¶ 17, 132 N.M. 73, 43 9 P.3d 1083 (“[I]t is the practical effect of th e orders in question, not the date on which 10 they are filed, that determines whether an order is final for purposes of appeal.”). The 11 rationale for this conclusion was thatalthough the WCJ entered an order on 12 September 21, this later order did not prevent the July 12 order from being final 13 because it did not alter, moot, or revise the decision contained in the July 12 order. 14 See Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison , 113 N.M. 231, 238, 824 P.2d 1033, 1040 15 (1992) (“Where a judgment declares the rights and liabilities of the parties to the 16 underlying controversy, a question remaining to be decided thereafter will not prevent 17 the judgment from being final if resolution of that question will not alter the judgment 18 or moot or revise decisions embodied therei n.”). Additionally, there appears to be no 193 new complaint after the July 12 order prompting the September 21 order. The June 1 21, 2012, application for modification of compensation order is the only complaint 2 that appears in the record during this time frame. [RP 465, 474] Both the July 12 and 3 September 21 orders ordered th e clerk not to file or process the complaint submitted 4 by Worker because it was redundant of prior adjudicated matters. [RP 482, 514] 5 Worker did not point out any specific error in fact or law to this proposed 6 disposition. Hennessy v. Duryea , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 7 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held th at, in summary calendar cases, the burden is 8 on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or 9 law.”). Worker seems to indicate that it wa s court error that resu lted in Worker failing 10 to receive “paperwork” in a timely fashi on which in turn prevented him from filing 11 a timely notice of appeal. [MIO 5] Worker asserts that these exceptional 12 circumstances warrant this C ourt to entertain the untimely notice of appeal. [MIO 4] 13 However, the record indicates that copies of the July 12 order were mailed to all the 14 parties, including Worker. [RP 482] 15 As indicated in this Court’s notice, ev en assuming Worker argues that the WCJ 16 did not consider the evidence supporting his claims of bad faith, fraud, and ex-parte 17 communication, it appears the WCJ reviewedthe content of the application and 18 determined that there was no new meaningful content or evidence warranting further 194 processing of the application. [RP 482] Because Worker did not appeal from that 1 order and the time for doing so has expired, we affirm th e WCJ’s order, and dismiss 2 the appeal. See Rule 12-601(B) NMRA (mandating that notice of appeal from an 3 administrative agency be filed within th irty days of filing of a final order). 4 Insofar as the September 21 order can be construed as a final appealable order, 5 the WCJ found, after a full hearing and reviewof the pleadings, that the application 6 did not warrant reopening the case for review. [RP 514; see also 403-07] 7 Specifically, it appears that the WCJ found in its August 23, 2012, order that Worker 8 was not credible, and the evidence failed toestablish grounds for modifying the order. 9 [RP 404-05] And in its September 21, 2012, order, the WCJ found that there was no 10 new material submitted in Worker’s “App lication for Modification of Compensation 11 Order” and that the application was “merely redundant of prior adjudicated matters.” 12 [RP 514] We proposed to conclude there was no abuse of discretion in the WCJ’s 13 determination that Worker’s applicati on was insufficient to warrant review. See 14 Durham v. Gulf Interstate Eng’g Co. , 74 N.M. 277, 282-283, 393 P.2d 15, 19 (1964). 15 Worker failed to point out any error in fact or law with this Court’s proposed 16 disposition. See Hennessy , 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24. 17 For these reasons and those statedin the notice of proposed summary 18 disposition, we dismiss the appeal. 195 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

__________________________________ 2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4

_______________________________ 5 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 6

_______________________________ 7 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 8