What is the test for an application to appeal against a finding that a plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits during a medical malpractice case?

Defendant correctly claims that this appeal is premature because plaintiff filed it before defendant could conduct a hearing to determine the period during which plaintiff received workers' compensation and her ability to repay that amount. "`Under the doctrine of the exhaustion of administrative remedies, a party must go through the entire proceeding to a "final decision on the merits of the entire controversy" before resorting to the courts for relief.' [Citation.]" (Bollengier v. Doctors Medical Center (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1115, 1125, italics omitted.)

Plaintiff concedes she did not exhaust her administrative remedies but asserts this case falls within an exception that "the exhaustion requirement is excused where its pursuit would be futile, idle or useless. [Citation.]" (Bollengier v. Doctors Medical Center, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1126.) She maintains that once defendant makes the ordered findings, the case will ultimately return to this court to decide whether the trial court's interpretation of compensation to include workers' compensation benefits is correct. She concludes the information is "meaningless for purposes of this appeal." We disagree.