PURPOSE: This rule establishes the conduct, performance and productivity standards for administrative law judges, associate administrative law judges and legal advisors as required by section 287.610.2, RSMo Supp. 1998. PUBLISHER’S NOTE: The publication of the full text of the material that the adopting agency has incorporated by reference in this rule would be unduly cumbersome or expensive. Therefore, the full text of that material will be made available to any interested person at both the Office of the Secretary of State and the office of the adopting agency, pursuant to section 536.031.4, RSMo. Such material will be provided at the cost established by state law.

1. (1) The director of the division shall perform an annual evaluation of all chief administrative law judges. The chief administrative law judge of each local office shall perform an annual evaluation of all administrative law judges, associate administrative law judges and legal advisors in the local office based on the standards established by this rule.

2. (2) The performance and productivity of administrative law judges, associate administrative law judges and legal advisors shall be based on an objective appropriate evaluation of individual standards, office standards and system (division)-wide standards. The performance and productivity standards will be based on the following individual, office and system-wide standards. When appropriate, these standards should be reviewed on a calendar or fiscal year. The standards reflect a collaborative effort among the department, division director and administrative law judges, associate administrative law judges and legal advisors.

   1. (A) System-Wide Standards—

      1. 1. An appropriate number of docket set-

tings held by the end of each year;

1. 2. An appropriate disposition rate of

cases closed to cases assigned;

1. 3. An appropriate number of cases

opened and closed;

1. 4. An appropriate number of cases

closed and their disposition at the end of the year;

1. 5. An appropriate time period between

the injury date, division notification of injury, and the date of disposition of the case;

1. 6. An appropriate time period from the

request for a docket setting to the date action is taken;

1. 7. An appropriate time period between

the date of the maximum medical improvement (rating) and the disposition of the case;

1. 8. An appropriate time period between

a party’s request for a docket setting and the date the setting is held or other appropriate action is taken;

1. 9. An appropriate time period from the

date of the request for a hardship hearing to date of disposition; and

1. 10. An appropriate number of cases con-

cluded in statutory time frame.

1. (B) Office-Wide Standards—

   1. 1. An appropriate number of docket set-

tings held by the end of each year;

1. 2. An appropriate disposition rate of

cases closed to cases assigned;

1. 3. An appropriate number of cases

opened and closed;

1. 4. An appropriate number of cases

closed and their disposition at the end of the year;

1. 5. An appropriate time period between

the injury date, division notification of injury, and the date of disposition of the case;

1. 6. An appropriate time period from the

request for a docket setting to the date action is taken;

1. 7. An appropriate time period between

the date of the maximum medical improvement (rating) and the disposition of the case;

1. 8. An appropriate time period between

a party’s request for a docket setting and the date the setting is held or other appropriate action is taken;

1. 9. An appropriate time period from the

date of the request for a hardship hearing to date of disposition; and

1. 10. An appropriate number of cases con-

cluded in statutory time frame.

1. (C) Individual standards as determined at least annually by the chief administrative law judge in consultation with the administrative law judges in their respective offices.

   1. 1. For administrative law judges, asso-

ciate law judges and legal advisors, the performance and productivity measures shall include:

1. A. An appropriate number of docket

settings held by the end of each year;

1. B. An appropriate disposition rate of

cases closed to cases assigned;

1. C. An appropriate number of cases

closed;

1. D. An appropriate number of cases

closed and their disposition at the end of the year;

1. E. An appropriate time period

between the injury date, division notification of injury, and the date of disposition of the case;

1. F. An appropriate time period from

the request for a docket setting to the date action is taken;

1. G. An appropriate time period

between the date of the maximum medical improvement (rating) and the disposition of the case;

1. H. An appropriate time period

between a party’s request for a docket setting and the date the setting is held or other appropriate action is taken;

1. I. An appropriate time period from

the date of the request for a hardship hearing to date of disposition;

1. J. An appropriate number of cases

concluded in statutory time frame;

1. K. An appropriate time period

between the date of the last hearing and the issuance of the written award; and

1. L. An appropriate time period from

the date of the hardship hearing to the date that the written award is issued.

1. 2. For all administrative law judges and

associate administrative law judges, all hearings shall be concluded within the statutory time period.

1. (3) The division hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Code of Judicial Conduct for Missouri Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judges and Legal Advisors. This Code shall be used to evaluate the conduct of administrative law judges, associate administrative law judges and legal advisors. This Code shall be made available to all who request it.
2. (4) This rule shall in no way be construed to inhibit, restrain or restrict the ability of an administrative law judge, associate administrative law judge or legal advisor to decide any issue regarding a workers’ compensation case that is before that individual for decision or approval. The review of these decisions shall be prohibited except as established in sections 287.470, 287.480, 287.490, and 287.495, RSMo, which provide for appellate review of the decision and award of an administrative law judge or associate administrative law judge.
3. (5) Any administrative law judge, associate administrative law judge or legal advisor who receives an unsatisfactory evaluation in any of the three (3) categories of conduct, performance, or productivity may appeal that evaluation to the Administrative Law Judge Review Committee.
4. (6) The division director may refer an unsatisfactory evaluation of any administrative law judge, associate administrative law judge, or legal advisor to the Administrative Law Judge Review Committee. 8 CSR 50-2
5. (7) When a written complaint is made against an administrative law judge, associate administrative law judge or legal advisor, it shall be referred to the director of the division. When the director finds the complaint alleges facts which if proved true would constitute a crime, habitual drunkenness, willful neglect of duties, the failure to meet reasonable conduct, performance or productivity standards, incompetency, corruption in office, or any offense involving oppression in office or moral turpitude, it shall be referred to the committee for investigation and review.

AUTHORITY: section 287.610.2, RSMo Supp. 1998.* Emergency rule filed Dec. 21, 1998, effective Jan. 1, 1999, expired June 29, 1999. Original rule filed Dec. 21, 1998, effective June 30, 1999.

*Original authority: 1939, amended 1945, 1951, 1955, 1957, 1959, 1961, 1977, 1980, 1987, 1992, 1993, 1998.