Opinion ID: 2621671
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: today's first issue is to be resolved by the principles applicable to an order's reviewability

Text: ¶ 15 Resolution of the first question in today's controversywhether the trial tribunal erred when it overlooked the binding effect of its April 2001 order extending TTDrequires that we address a rule of law not raised by either party [27] that which governs reviewability of a compensation order. A worker's quest to receive compensation for an on-the-job injury is a statutory public-law proceeding, not a private dispute. [28] When resolving a public-law question, we are free to choose sua sponte the dispositive public-law theory although the wrong one is advanced. [29] ¶ 16 Any order of the workers' compensation court which makes or denies an award or otherwise determines the rights of the parties is final and subject to immediate review. [30] An aggrieved party must seek review at the first opportunity. [31] Failure to complain of error at that stage makes the decision final and impervious to any reconsideration. [32] ¶ 17 As a trial tribunal the WCC retains exclusive jurisdiction over its orders and awards only during the period prescribed by law for lodging a proceeding for review. [33] One who is aggrieved by a decision of the trial judge has three available remedies. The award becomes final and conclusive upon all questions unless (a) within 20 days after a copy of the award has been sent to the parties, review is sought in the Supreme Court, [34] or (b) appeal is brought to a three-judge panel of the WCC within 10 days after a copy of the award is sent [35] or (c) within the same 20 day statutory period during which review of the original award could have been sought, a trial judge's order vacating the award is issued upon due notice to the parties and after an adversary hearing. [36] Upon failure of the parties to appeal or bring review an order becomes binding and conclusive. ¶ 18 Here the court's April 2001 order made a continuing TTD award. It granted Yeatman up to 52 weeks of continuing TTD and deferred to a future resolution only a demand for overpayment credit. The order's perplexing wordingdeferring to a future hearing the issue of TTD overpayment credit [37] does not strip the rest of its terms of attributes of finality. It was subject to re-examination solely during the period prescribed for intra-court or appellate review. The employer here invoked none of the available remedies in response to the trial judge's award of continued TTD benefits. The April 2001 award hence became final. It is subject solely to expiration, judicial extension or an earlier termination than upon the full length of 52 weeks. The WCC's September 2002 order here under review not only changed Yeatman's status from that of TTD to PPD. It, in essence, stripped of effectiveness the entire April 2001 order before its term expired or there was a judicial declaration either terminating or extending TTD benefits. [38] In short, the trial judge impermissibly overlooked the force of the April 2001 order after her power to disturb its binding effect had ceased.