 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gorton v. Intel Corporation3/5/2001
Cheryl Gorton appeals from a memorandum opinion that affirmed a ruling of the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals denying benefits. Because the superior court never entered a final, appealable order Gorton's appeal to this court is premature. The court also failed to rule on one of Gorton's claims. We remand the case to superior court to consider Gorton's unresolved claim and thereafter to enter a final order.
Gorton began her employment with Intel Corporation in 1996. Her job consisted of packaging and required long hours of standing on uneven cement floors. After approximately three months she began to feel pains in her feet, hands and back. She filed three claims, which the Department of Labor and Industries denied. Gorton appealed each ruling to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals. The Board consolidated Gorton's claims for appeal and considered testimony by medical witnesses, Gorton, and her supervisor. The Board found that no medical professional had made objective findings to substantiate the claimed injuries and that no treatment for the conditions had alleviated her complaints, even after she was removed from the work she claimed caused the conditions.
Gorton appealed to the superior court. Her petition withdrew her request for review of her hand claim, leaving claims for her feet and back still before the court. The superior court reviewed the certified record and arguments of counsel and issued a memorandum opinion. The opinion erroneously stated that Gorton had withdrawn her claim for both her back injury and her hand injury. The court considered only the claim for injury to Gorton's feet and concluded evidence of objective findings was lacking and therefore denied the petition for review.
When Intel belatedly received a copy of the memorandum decision, it moved for reconsideration, asking the court to address Gorton's back injury claim and to direct entry of a judgment. The court responded with a written order finding the motion to reconsider untimely. Gorton filed a pro se brief on appeal. Intel responded with a motion on the merits and a motion to stay briefing. A court commissioner granted the motion to stay further briefing and referred the case to this panel.
Intel and Gorton agree that the case must be remanded to the superior court for consideration of the back claim. Gorton asks us to consider and reverse the court's memorandum opinion on her foot injury claim. Intel argues that because no judgment was ever entered, the claim is unreviewable. Alternatively, Intel asks that we affirm the superior court on the foot injury claim.
A memorandum opinion is generally not a final appealable order, but is rather a direction to counsel as to how to prepare a final order. Department of Labor and Indus. v. Kennewick, 99 Wn.2d 225, 661 P.2d 133 (1983). Civil Rule 54(e) requires entry of a formal order, which is usually prepared by the prevailing party and signed by the judge. The civil rules apply when the superior court is sitting in its appellate capacity. Kennewick, 99 Wn.2d at 229.
Even if we could consider the court's memorandum decision to be a final order, the case would still have to be remanded for the court to rule on Gorton's unresolved claim for injuries to her back. As the claims were consolidated below, addressing the merits of the foot injury claim now would result in piecemeal review of the case, a practice disfavored in Washington. Fox v. Sunmaster Prods., Inc., 115 Wn.2d 498, 798 P.2d 808 (1990); Wlasiuk v. Whirlpool Corp., 76 Wn. App. 250, 884 P.2d 13 (1994).
Intel's motion on the merits is denied without prejudice. We remand the case for the superior court to consi
Page 1 2 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|