From award of ALJ to Industrial Commission - Within 20 days of date of award of ALJ
In Headrick v Jackes-Evans Manufacturing Co., 108 S.W.3d 114 (Mo.App.E.D. 2003), employee appeals from Commission’s order dismissing application for review of workers’ compensation award as untimely. The envelope in which it was mailed was outside the 20-day period required by §287.480.1. The Court held that the Commission should conduct a hearing to resolve whether or not the application for review was timely mailed. Reversed and remanded.
In Malone v Treasurer of State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, 72 S.W.3d 608 (Mo.App. E.D. 2002), the ALJ issued an Order of Dismissal, the employee mistakenly filed Motion to Set Aside Award of Dismissal with the Division of Workers’ Compensation, rather than the LIRC. Thereafter he filing an amended motion with the Commission, which was more than 20 days from the date of the Dismissal Order of the ALJ. Case dismissal held final.
In Smith v Richardson Bros. Roofing, 32 S.W.3d 568 (Mo.App. S.D. 2000) Multiple applications for review or amendments to such applications after of the twenty day time limit are not permitted under section 287.480.
In Shelton v Missouri Baptist Medical Center, 998 S.W.2d 832 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999), the Court found that the claimant filed a timely Application for Review since it did not receive notice of the first Dismissal Order, but had filed the application within 20 days of the Second Dismissal Order. The initial Dismissal Order was never sent to the claimant until a subsequent dismissal by a different ALJ a week later.
In Smith v Smiler Container Corp, 997 S.W.2d 126 (Mo.App. S.D. 1999), the employer filed an Application for Review stating that the Administrative Law Judge’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The Court found that the Commission’s regulations require an Application for Review to state specifically the reason the aggrieved party believes the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge were not properly supported. The Court noted that the regulation explicitly provides that it is not sufficient to merely state the decision on any particular issue is not supported by competent and substantial evidence.