This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion ma y contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 JOHNNY A. HERRERA, 7 Worker-Appellant, 8

v. NO. 28,577 9 EBERLINE SERVICES AND 10 COMMERCE & INDUSTRY 11 INSURANCE COMPANY, 12 Employer/Insurer-Appellees 13 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 14 Helen L. Stirling, District Judge 15 Gerald A. Hanrahan 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellant 18 Michelle D. Lopez 19 McKinney, TX 20 for Appellees 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 FRY, Chief Judge. 232 Worker appeals the compensation order entered on April 25, 2008. [RP 407] 1 This case was assigned to the general cal endar on June 26, 2008, but was re-assigned 2 to the summary calendar on July 29, 2009. In our second calendar notice, we 3 proposed to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable orde r. Worker has filed 4 a memorandum in opposition to our calendar notice. After due consideration of 5 Worker’s arguments, we are not persuaded thatdismissal is inappropriate in this case. 6 Therefore, we dismiss Worker’s appeal. 7 As discussed in our second calendar notice, the compensation order does not 8 include assignment of an impairment rating to Worker. Instead, the WCJ offered the 9 parties a choice between accepting an impairment rating of 17% as given by Dr. 10 Elliott, a provider “whose opinions are currently not authorized,” or requesting a 11 hearing to appoint a specialist to assign an impairment rating to Worker. [RP 432] 12 Worker was specifically granted thirty days from the date of the hearing, if requested, 13 in which to file an appeal of the decision. [Id.] The parties did not request a hearing. 14 Instead, Worker appealed the compensation order that contained the two options given 15 to the parties. 16 As we discussed in our s econd calendar notice, an orde r is not final unless all 17 issues of law and fact have been determinedand the case disposed of by the fact finder 183 to the fullest extent possible. See Kelly Inn No. 102, Inc. v. Kapnison , 113 N.M. 231, 1 236, 824 P.2d 1033, 1038 (1992). “Finality is a prerequisite to this Court’s 2 jurisdiction.” In re Adoption of Homer F. , 2009-NMCA-082, ¶ 19, ___ N.M. ___, ___ 3 P.3d ____. The compensation order in this case does not contain a final decision on 4 the impairment rating to be assigned to Wo rker. Instead, the order gives the parties 5 choices with respect to Work er’s impairment rating. Therefore, the compensation 6 order does not dispose of all issues of law a nd fact to the fullest extent possible. The 7 Workers’ Compensation Act allows direct appeals to this Court only from final orders 8 by the WCJ. See NMSA 1978, § 52-5-8(A) (1989) . While we sympathize with 9 Workers’ predicament, we lack jurisdiction to hear Worker’s appeal. For the reasons 10 discussed above and in our second calendar notice, we dismiss Worker’s appeal. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

16 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 174 1 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 2