PURPOSE: This rule outlines procedures for appeals from a final award, order or decision made by an administrative law judge of the Division of Workers’ Compensation.

1. (1) Review—Appeal. Any interested party in a contested case may appeal from a final award, order or decision made by an administrative law judge of the Division of Workers’ Compensation by making an application for review within twenty (20) days from the date of the award, order or decision with the commission as provided by section 287.480, RSMo. A form to be used in making an application for review has been promulgated by the commission and is available upon request. The applicant for review is not required to use the promulgated form; provided, the application sets forth information in regard to the case and award which is sought to be reviewed and the reasons for making the application for a review of the evidence. An application for review shall be signed by the applicant or the applicant’s attorney. An application filed on behalf of a corporation shall be signed by an attorney licensed in Missouri.

2. (2) Additional Evidence.

   1. (A) After an application for review has been filed with the commission, any interested party may file a motion to submit additional evidence to the commission. The hearing of additional evidence by the commission shall not be granted except upon the ground of newly discovered evidence which with reasonable diligence could not have been produced at the hearing before the administrative law judge. The motion to submit additional evidence shall set out specifically and in detail—

      1. 1. The nature and substance of the new-

ly discovered evidence;

1. 2. Names of witnesses to be produced;
2. 3. Nature of the exhibits to be intro-

duced;

1. 4. Full and accurate statement of the

reason the testimony or exhibits reasonably could not have been discovered or produced at the hearing before the administrative law judge;

1. 5. Newly discovered medical evidence

shall be supported by a medical report signed by the doctor and attached to the petition, shall contain a synopsis of the doctor’s opinion, basis for the opinion and the reason for not submitting same at the hearing before the administrative law judge; and

1. 6. Tender of merely cumulative evidence

or additional medical examinations does not constitute a valid ground for the admission of additional evidence by the commission.

1. (B) The commission shall consider the motion to submit additional evidence and any answer of opposing parties without oral argument of the parties and enter an order either granting or denying the motion. If the motion is granted, the opposing party(ies) shall be permitted to present rebuttal evidence. As a matter of policy, the commission is opposed to the submission of additional evidence except where it furthers the interests of justice. Therefore, all available evidence shall be introduced at the hearing before the administrative law judge.

1. (3) Applications and Briefs.

   1. (A) An applicant for review of any final award, order or decision of the administrative law judge shall state specifically in the application the reason the applicant believes the findings and conclusions of the administrative law judge on the controlling issues are not properly supported. It shall not be sufficient merely to state that the decision of the administrative law judge on any particular issue is not supported by competent and substantial evidence.

   2. (B) If the applicant for review (known as the petitioner) desires to file a brief or memorandum of law in support of the application, it shall be indicated in the application. The petitioner’s brief or memorandum of law shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the transmittal of the transcript of record. Parties to a claim who do not file an application for review may file reply briefs or memoranda of law within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the applicant’s brief or memorandum of law. 8 CSR 20-3

      *Original authority: 286.060, RSMo 1945, amended

The commission shall have discretion, after 1947, 1980, 1995. notice to the parties, to extend or accelerate the briefing schedule.

1. (4) Answers and Briefs.

   1. (A) An opposing party (known as the respondent) may file an answer to the petitioner’s application for review, concisely addressing each of the contentions set forth in the application. The answer(s) shall be filed within ten (10) days after the filing of the application for review. The commission shall have discretion to extend the time for filing an answer.
   2. (B) If the petitioner does not include a request for a briefing schedule in the application for review and the respondent desires to file a brief or memorandum of law, that request shall be included in the answer. If the petitioner has requested a briefing schedule, but fails to file a timely brief after that, the respondent may file a brief or memorandum of law only if the respondent included a request to file a brief or memorandum of law in the answer.
2. (5) Briefs, Typewritten. Briefs filed in any case pending before the commission shall be typewritten. The original and two (2) copies shall be filed with the commission and a copy served upon the opposing party(ies).
3. (6) Oral Argument. Oral argument may be granted by the commission; provided, the request to present oral argument is made in the application for review or in the answer and includes the reason the argument cannot be made adequately by brief. Untimely requests for leave to present oral argument shall not be entertained nor will any request to present oral argument in lieu of a brief be allowed.
4. (7) Hardship Setting. If the claimant for workers’ compensation requests a hardship setting before the commission, an accelerated briefing schedule may be set and oral argument may be denied. The request for a hardship setting shall be made in the application for review, in an answer to the application or in a separate motion to the commission and shall set forth the reason expedited review is necessary. The commission shall have discretion to designate a cause as a hardship case.

AUTHORITY: section 286.060, RSMo Supp. 1997.* This version of rule filed Dec. 18, 1975, effective Dec. 28, 1975. Amended: Filed Dec. 31, 1975, effective Jan. 10, 1976. Amended: Filed March 16, 1992, effective Sept. 6, 1992. Amended: Filed Nov. 17, 1998, effective April 30, 1999. Relations Commission