PURPOSE: This rule states powers, duties and functions delegated to the division and separates jurisdiction of the division and commission in contested cases and settlements.

1. (1) The Division of Workers’ Compensation shall have and exercise the following powers, duties and functions on behalf of the commission in the administration of the Workers’ Compensation Law, section 287.410, RSMo:

   1. (A) The receiving and filing of all reports of injury, claims for compensation, answers to claims for compensation, receipts, notices of termination of compensation and all other forms, instruments and documents required to be used or filed in connection with Workers’ Compensation claims before the time of the issuance of a final award, order or decision of any administrative law judge;
   2. (B) The receiving, filing, processing and recordkeeping of all exempted employers’ acceptances of the Workers’ Compensation Law and withdrawals of exempted employers’ acceptances of the law;
   3. (C) The duties and responsibilities given the commission by the legislature under section 287.280, RSMo relative to employers who carry their own insurance (self-insurers);
   4. (D) The duties and responsibilities given the commission by the legislature under section 287.220, RSMo relative to the Second Injury Fund;
   5. (E) The duties and responsibilities given the commission by the legislature under section 287.810, RSMo relative to a change of administrative law judge; and
   6. (F) All documents and instruments referred to in subsections (1)(A)–(E) and required to be filed by either the employer or employee shall be filed with the division.

2. (2) Original Hearings—Administrative Law Judges, Authority and Power.

   1. (A) All original hearings in contested cases shall be heard by the administrative law judges of the division. In any case which has been regularly assigned to an administrative law judge by the director of the division, that administrative law judge shall have full power, jurisdiction and authority to issue all interlocutory orders necessary to the proper and expeditious handling of the case.
   2. (B) Those interlocutory orders, including formal dismissal of unnecessary parties, shall be entered in the minutes of hearings and shall become final upon the issuance of a final award by the administrative law judge.
   3. (C) An administrative law judge shall not have any authority to change or modify a final award issued by an administrative law judge after the lapse of twenty (20) days from the date of issuance of an award or after an application for review (see 8 CSR 20-3.030) has been filed with the commission in connection with any final award, order or decision of an administrative law judge.
   4. (D) Any administrative law judge shall have authority and power to approve motions for settlement of workers’ compensation claims; provided, the claim is pending in the division for adjudication. No administrative law judge shall have authority to approve settlement of workers’ compensation claims pending before the commission.

3. (3) Original Hearings—Compromise Settlements.

   1. (A) No original hearings in contested cases shall be heard by the commission or any member of the commission. No compromise settlement of a workers’ compensation claim shall be submitted to the commission or any of its members for approval if the claim is pending in the division.
   2. (B) All motions for settlement of claims pending before the commission shall be submitted to the commission for approval.
   3. (C) All compromise settlements of workers’ compensation claims pending in the circuit or appellate courts shall be submitted to the commission for approval. The appeal shall first be dismissed or withdrawn from the circuit or appellate court and jurisdiction restored to the commission before the commission may approve the compromise settlement.
4. (4) Modifying Death Benefit Awards. The commission shall have sole authority to modify final awards allowing death benefits to dependents. The commission may modify death benefit awards from time-to-time upon its own motion or upon motion by an interested party. All motions for modification of final awards shall be made to the commission and the movant shall submit proof of the change or condition or status of the parties receiving the benefits. Proof of the remarriage of the dependent surviving spouse shall be made by filing a copy of the marriage license of the remarried dependent surviving 8 CSR 20-3

spouse or affidavit of the surviving spouse admitting remarriage. Proof of the death of any dependent shall be made by filing a copy of the death certificate of the dependent. Evidence of the remarriage of the dependent surviving spouse or the death of dependents may be made by deposition or other evidence as the commission may specify.

1. (5) Lump Sum Payment of Compensation (Motion for Commutation).

   1. (A) A motion for commutation of compensation due may be filed with the division or one of its administrative law judges at the time a hearing is held and evidence shall be heard on the motion. If payment of compensation is awarded by the administrative law judge, a decision shall be made by the administrative law judge relative to the motion for lump sum payment.
   2. (B) A motion for commutation shall be filed with the commission in all cases in which the award of the administrative law judge has become final.
   3. (C) Three (3) copies of the motion for commutation shall be filed by the moving party. A copy of the motion shall be sent by the division or the commission to all interested parties.
   4. (D) When interested parties are notified of the motion, they may file a response with the division or the commission, depending upon where the motion is pending, within twenty

2. (20) days of notification. If no objection is filed, the motion shall be reviewed upon the facts and evidence submitted by the movant and a decision made without a formal hearing.

   1. (E) If objections to the commutation are filed, the commission or the division, depending upon where the motion is pending, shall hold a hearing. The commission or division shall review the evidence and render its decision.
   2. (F) An order allowing or denying the motion shall be sent by United States mail to all interested parties.
   3. (G) A commutation of compensation due a minor dependent shall not be approved or ordered until a legal guardian for the dependent has been appointed by the probate court of the county in which the dependent resides and proof of the appointment of a guardian and a certificate of the probate court certifying that the guardian has qualified shall be filed with the motion for commutation.
   4. (H) No party shall settle an award for compensation due upon the basis of its commutable value without submitting a motion for approval to the commission or the division. AUTHORITY: section 286.060, RSMo 1986.* This version of rule filed Dec. 18, 1975, effective Dec. 28, 1975. Amended: Filed July 11, 1991, effective Dec. 9, 1991. Amended: Filed Sept. 30, 1992, effective April 8, 1993. Rule action notice invalidating subsection (2)(C) March 12, 1996. Rule action notice validating subsection (2)(C) Aug. 28, 1998. *Original authority: 286.060, RSMo 1945, amended 1947, 1980.

Farm v. Barlow Truck Lines Inc., 979 SW2d 169 (Mo. banc 1998)

State ex rel. Doe Run Company v. Brown, 918 SW 2d 303 (Mo App. 1996). An administrative law judge set aside a dismissal of a claim for workers’ compensation. The claim had been dismissed for the failure to prosecute. A regulation promulgated by the Labor and Industrial Relation Commission, 8 CSR 20-3.010(2)(C), implied that an administrative law judge had authority to change or modify any final award within twenty days. Twenty days is the period of time in which to file an application for review with the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. The Doe Run Company (employer) filed a petition for writ of prohibition of mandamus in circuit court, challenging the administrative law judge’s authority to set aside the dismissal of the claim for compensation. A permanent order in prohibition was denied by the circuit court and the employer sought review in the appellate court.

The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, said that section 287.610.2, RSMo (1994), provides an administrative law judge with no jurisdiction to review or authority to reopen any prior award. Another statute, section 287.655, RSMo (1994), provides that an order of dismissal for lack of prosecution is an award, subject to review the same as any other award. The appellate court held that the proper avenue for review of an order of dismissal for failure to prosecute is by filing an application for review with the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission within twenty days of the date of the dismissal. Section 287.480, RSMo (1994). The administrative law judge was without jurisdiction to reinstate the employee’s compensation claim against the employer. To the extent that 8 CSR 20-3.010(2)(C) is interpreted as granting an administrative law judge with authority to reinstate a dismissed workers’ compensation claim within twenty days of a dismissal order, the rule conflicts with section 287.610.2, RSMo (1994), and is invalid. Cowick v. Gibbs Beauty Supplies, 430 SW2d 626 (Mo. App. 1968). Court of Appeals limited in review of award of Industrial Commission concerning workers’ compensation claim to a determination of whether the award was supported by competent and substantial evidence and whether an award could have reasonably been made upon a consideration of all of the evidence. The commission is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.

Collins v. Eicher Heating Company, 319 SW2d 666 (Mo. App. 1959). Application for review by the full Industrial Commission filed by insurer and employer on form prepared by and furnished by the Industrial Commission and setting forth specific findings of administrative law judge appealed from, a request for permission to argue the case orally before the full commission because of conflicting medical evaluation of record, requesting the commission to appoint a qualified impartial physician to examine the employer and report his/her findings, court held to be in substantial compliance with the rules of the commission concerning applications for review; and therefore commission had jurisdiction to review the findings and award of the administrative law judge.

Hogue v. Wurdack, 298 SW2d 492 (Mo. App. 1957). Industrial Commission is a creature of the legislature, and its jurisdiction and the question of what persons are subject to it is to be determined from the act of legislature. Commission’s jurisdiction cannot be dependent on or enlarged by estoppel, waiver, conduct or agreement.

E.B. Jones Motor Company v. Industrial Commission, Division of Employment Security, 298 SW2d 411 (1957). Industrial Commission of Missouri is an entity subject to being sued in its official name; however, it is not a “state officer” within the meaning of the constitutional provision, Art. V, Section 3, Constitution of Missouri; thus, Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction of an appeal from decision of the commission, because of the absence of a “state officer” as a party. Employment Security Law is not a revenue law.