Opinion ID: 1194273
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the proceeding is premature

Text: The institutional design by which a trial authority's decision in a compensation case could be amenable to review in advance of one available in this court was first introduced into our statutory law by amendments adopted in 1939. [1] Legislation enacted that year created what was later referred to as the trial tribunal en banc. [2] An unbroken line of opinions spanning a period of 35 years  from 1940 to 1975  articulates our commitment to the view that a case appealed for consideration en banc is not a fit subject for corrective relief in this court until a reviewable order has been rendered. [3] Settled case law defines a reviewable decision in a compensation case as one which makes or denies an award or otherwise constitutes a final determination of the rights of the parties. [4] An en banc order vacating the trial judge's decision and remanding the claim for further proceedings does not fall under the rubric of reviewable decisions. [5] The sweeping legislative revisions which became effective upon the enactment of the 1977 amendments [6] leave unaffected and unimpaired any prior case law that limits reviewability of decisions in compensation claims to those which either grant or deny an award or otherwise effect a final determination of rights. The order sought to be reviewed must hence be treated as a non-reviewable interlocutory disposition and the proceeding before us regarded as having been prematurely brought. [7] The attributes of prematurity are not altered by the employer's claim that the panel's remand  tendered here for review  is void because it may have granted overbroad and excessive relief or because it may fail to comply with the requirements of the 1977 amendments in that it does not recite that the trial judge's award was either against the clear weight of the evidence or contrary to law. [8] Reviewability does not depend on the efficacy of the disposition tendered for corrective relief in this court. Judicial misapplication or misuse of law or power  no matter how apparent or eggregious  does not ipso facto confer upon the aggrieved party the right of review. Rather, error is reviewable only when committed in the course of proceedings that are an incident of, or culminate in, some decision which is statutorily defined as a fit subject for corrective process in this court. [9] The errors sought to be corrected are all incidental to the panel's remand. That decision is not reviewable here.