Administrative Procedure: Contested Case Hearing: Evidence

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Willard E. Vannett [7/23/99] 1999 MTWCC 44 Where State Fund did not present good reasons for failing to present IME in proceeding before DOL, motion to present additional evidence denied.
Ranger Ins. Co. v. Bates [3/16/98] 1998 MTWCC 24 While the Montana Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA) requires an evidentiary hearing in contested cases (§2-4-601, MCA), it does not prohibit summary rulings where there are no evidentiary facts of consequence in dispute.
Partin v. State Fund [3/14/97] 1997 MTWCC 11 DOL hearing officer did not err in refusing to allow claimant to present at a date following the date set for hearing telephonic testimony of a witness not listed by claimant, even though the witness had been listed by the respondent-insurer. If claimant had been permitted to introduce the testimony, it would have been necessary to allow respondent to produce rebuttal testimony, extending and delaying the hearing.

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.