Biers v. Labor Comm'n
Annotate this Case----ooOoo----
Samuel Lee Biers,
Petitioner,
v.
State of Utah, Labor Commission;
R. Lee Ellertson; Liberty
Mutual Insurance;
United Parcel Service,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 20010971-CA
F I L E D
January 31, 2002
2002 UT App 23
-----
Original Proceeding in this Court
Attorneys:
Samuel Lee Biers, Lansing,
MI, Petitioner Pro Se
Dori K. Petersen and Kristy
L. Bertelsen, Salt Lake City, for Respondents United Parcel Service and
Liberty Mutual Insurance
Alan Hennebold, Salt Lake
City, for Respondent Labor Commission
-----
Before Judges Billings, Davis, and Thorne.
PER CURIAM:
This matter is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition on the basis that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition for review. Respondent filed a response to the motion. Petitioner did not file a response, but filed a voluntary motion to dismiss contingent upon the preservation of issues before the Utah Labor Commission. Because we conclude the court has no jurisdiction over the petition, it is unnecessary to consider the motion to dismiss.
Petitioner seeks review of the Commission's Order Dismissing Interlocutory Motion for Review. The order was entered on October 31, 2001. Petitioner mailed his petition for review of the agency order on November 23, 2001; however, neither the documents nor the filing fee was received and filed with this court until December 11, 2001, eleven days after the deadline to file an appeal. A filing is not deemed timely unless the papers are received by the clerk within the time for filing. See Utah R. App. P. 21(a). Because the documents were not received by this court within the filing time, the petition was untimely and this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
The petition is also not
taken from a final order of an agency. See Utah Code Ann. §
63-46b-14 (1997). The Commission's order denied interlocutory review of
an order. The Commission pointed out that there had been no decision rendered
on the merits of the claim. Further, the Commission points out that any
errors could be corrected or rendered moot by further developments in the
case. Because the order is not final this court lacks jurisdiction. There
is no provision for interlocutory review of agency orders. See Utah
R. App. P. 18 (stating that Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 5 is not applicable
to review of agency decisions). Therefore, the petition is dismissed.
______________________________
Judith M. Billings,
Associate Presiding Judge
______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
______________________________
William A. Thorne, Jr.,
Judge
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.