discretion. 1. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The superior court’s order cited Oxendine’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as an independent reason why the superior court lacked jurisdiction under OCGA § 50-13-19 (a). That is a misreading of the statute: it creates an exception to the exhaustion requirement. OCGA § 50-13-19 (a) expressly authorizes immediate judicial review of a preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action “if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy” So in appropriate cases, it authorizes judicial review of preliminary procedural rulings like the Commission’s denial of Oxendine’s motions in this case. See Wills v. Composite State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 259 Ga. 549, 550 (1) (384 SE2d 636) (1989) (<HOLDING>). 2. Contested case. The superior court also
recognizing that statute of limitations questions may be resolved on a motion to dismiss holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable  holding that ocga  501319 a permitted judicial review of agencys denial of motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds and motion to compel discovery holding that review of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is under the de novo standard holding that the plaintiffs reply to the defendants motion to dismiss which did not allege a specific date of discovery was still sufficient to establish a potential defense to the statute of limitations