In Tidwell v Walker Construction, 151 S.W.3d 127 (Mo.App.S.D. 2004), claimant filed Claim based on alleged injuries to his back. Following a hearing, the ALJ found claimant did not sustain an accident resulting in injuries arising out of and in the course of employment and denied compensation. The Commission entered a final award denying compensation. In the order, the Commission noted that the claimant filed a motion to present additional evidence which the Commission remanded back to the ALJ for an evidentiary hearing to introduce this new evidence for consideration by the Commission. The remand transcript was reviewed by the Commission, and after review the Commission found that the evidence was not newly discovered and was available to the employee prior to the trial and even if it was admitted into evidence, the proposed evidence lacked the probative value necessary to cause a change in the underlying decision to deny the employee’s benefits. The Court ruled that there was no error in the procedure the Commission followed and therefore, the award is affirmed.
In Hampton v Big Boy Steel Erection, et al., , 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. 2003), claimant filed a disputed workers’ compensation claim. The ALJ found that the claimant had sustained a 25% partial disability to the body as a whole. Employer appealed. The Commission modified award and found permanent and partial disability. The Supreme Court affirmed, ruling, in a landmark decision, that there is nothing in the Missouri Constitution or §287.495.1 that requires a reviewing court to view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the award. The standard is “whether considering the whole record, there is sufficient competent and substantial evidence to support the award.”
The standard of review is “whether considering the whole record there is sufficient competent and substantial evidence to support the award.” The standard would not be met when the award is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. This case overruled the “two step” standard of review set forth in Davis v. Research Medical Center, 903 S.W.2d, 557 (Mo.App., W. D. 1995).