This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6

FRANK E. DUTCHER , 7 Worker-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 30,854 9 LABOR CONCEPTS, INC. 10 and DALLAS NATIONAL 11 INSURANCE COMPANY , 12 Employer/Insurer-Appellant. 13

APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION 14 Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge 15

Gerald A. Hanrahan 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellee 18 Paul L. Civerolo, L.L.P. 19 Paul L. Civerolo 20 Albuquerque, NM 21 for Appellant 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION 23 VIGIL, Judge. 242 Employer appeals a compensation order. In our notice, we proposed to dismiss 1 the appeal as the record indicated that Employer had filed a complaint and had the 2 case reopened. Employer has timely responded. We haveconsidered its arguments 3 and not being persuaded, we dismiss. 4 Employer argues that the order it appealedfrom is a final, appealable order as 5 it adjudicates the respective rights between th e “current” parties. While it is true that 6 the only parties to this case are Worker and Employer, it appears that the issue 7 regarding the status of Wilger Enterprises in relation to Worker’s job was raised and 8 litigated. The Worker’s Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that Wilger was a special 9 employer. [RP 67, 122-123] However, becau se Wilger had not been made a party to 10 the action, the WCJ did not rule on its liability. After the compensation order was 11 entered, Employer filed its complaint to bring Wilger into the case and ask the WCJ 12 to determine its liability. 13 We view that complaint as having the e ffect of reopening the case, thus making 14 the compensation order non-final. See Bianco v. Horror One Prods., 15 2009-NMSC-006, 145 N.M. 551, 202 P.3d 810 (allo wing for the filing of motions for 16 reconsideration in workers’ compensation cas es and determining th at an appeal filed 17 after the ruling on the motion was timely). Until the WCJ rules on the matters raised 18 in Employer’s complaint, the compensation order is not final. Cf. Grygorwicz v. 193 Trujillo , 2009-NMSC-009, ¶ 8, 145 N.M. 650, 203 P.3d 865 (stating that when a post1 judgment motion is filed thatcould alter or amend a judgment, the judgment is no 2 longer final for purposes of appeal). 3 Employer contends that its complaint is collateral to the underlying action and 4 the compensation order. We disagree. Th e docketing statement raises as issues from 5 the compensation order alleged error on the part of the WCJ in awarding safety device 6 increases and sanctions against it when it was Wilger’s responsibility to provide the 7 safety devices. [DS 12-13] Thus, clearly , Wilger’s liability in this matter is not 8 collateral to Worker’s case against Employer. 9 Employer argues that we should look to th e substance, rather than the form, in 10 determining finality. We agree. However, in this case where issues of liability 11 between two employers remainundecided, we believe that substance is ruling our 12 determination. 13 Employer also argues that it is bad policy to delay the appeal here as parties will 14 never know when an order is final for the purposes of appeal and will file appeals 15 from every order in an abundance of caution, so as not to lose their right to appeal. 16 The purpose of the requirement for finality befo re appeal is so thatthe appellate courts 17 do not get pieces of cases to decide and so that cases below are not held up while on 18 appeal. See Exec. Sports Club, Inc. v. First Plaza Trust , 1998-NMSC-008, ¶ 11, 125 194 N.M. 78, 957 P.2d 63 (stating the principle of finality serves a multitude of purposes, 1 including the prevention of piecemeal appeals and the promotion of judicial 2 economy). The appellate courts want cases to be finally decided for all intents and 3 purposes, so that they can considerall issues relevant to the case. 4 Here, Employer’s docketing statement rais es several issues relating to the 5 liability for the safety device penalty. But, Employer has also requested that the WCJ 6 rule on the same issues: Who should be liable for the safety device increase and 7 penalty? There is no reason for this Court to rule on the matter when the WCJ has 8 been asked to rule on it. It is possible thatthe WCJ might rule in such a way that the 9 issue does not need to be addressed by th is Court. Once the WCJ rules on Employer’s 10 complaint, a final compensation order w ill be filed and Empl oyer may appeal from 11 that order. 12 For the reasons stated herein and inthe notice of proposed disposition, we 13 dismiss the appeal. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED

. 15

_______________________________ 16 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 175 WE CONCUR: 1

____________________________ 2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 3

____________________________ 4 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 56