Evidence: Generally

Marquardt v. Liberty [7/12/01] 2001 MTWCC 39 Parties are not precluded from presenting evidence in workers' compensation court which was not presented at mediation.

Miller v. State Fund [9/20/00] 2000 MTWCC 63 Claimant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of fraud at trial was not proper where claimant, in essence, sought to strike an affirmative defense but had not moved for partial summary judgment or to strike. The motion to exclude was also denied because no agreement to drop fraud defense arose from communications to Clerk of Court by counsel.

Davis v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, 2000 MTWCC 58 Insurer’s failure to offer evidence at trial proving that it did notify insured of statutory change in reporting requirement was not grounds to allow post-trial introduction of new evidence.

Matthews v. State Fund [2/4/99] 1999 MTWCC 13 affirmed in Matthews v. State Fund, 1999 MT 225 No medical evidence supports claimant's theory of conversion disorder. His arguments are based on references within some medical records to possibilities for consideration, not upon objective medical conclusions. Claim denied.

Erickson v. Champion International [07/26/95] 1995 MTWCC 58 Where claimant was informed he had the right to an attorney below, and was in fact in contact with counsel prior to his Department of Labor hearing, his pro se status before the DOL is not alone sufficient reason to allow introduction of additional medical evidence, even if such evidence is material to his case. Where claimant offers no good reason for his failure to present the evidence before the department other than his pro se status, the Court’s allowance of new evidence on appeal would permit every party to proceed pro se before the Department, then to hire counsel and secure a new hearing on appeal.

Wingfield v. State Compensation Ins. Fund [05/19/95] 1995 MTWCC 37 While claimant’s pro se status at the Department hearing is not sufficient to permit his introduction of new evidence following the hearing, vocational testimony presented at the hearing constituted new information and unfair surprise in light of prior information available to claimant, justifying presentation of new evidence.

Wingfield v. State Compensation Ins. Fund [05/19/95] 1995 MTWCC 37 Although Workers’ Compensation Court rule 24.5.350(4) contemplates acceptance of new evidence in the Workers’ Compensation Court on appeal from a decision of the Department of Labor and Industry, where claimant has shown entitlement to present new evidence, controversy over appropriate rehabilitation option for claimant is more appropriately remanded to the Department hearing officer, a procedure contemplated by section 2-4-703, MCA.