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. |