Cindy Rowe v Southeast Missouri Residential Services
Release Date: May 26. 2020 (December 9, 2009)
Venue: Southern District
Plot Summary: Court of appeals reverses and remands Commission's decision to deny benefits and remands to rule on admission or denial of a 4th motion to consider additional evidence.
2020 MO App. Lexis 697 SD 36275
Cast
Lynch, Hon.
claimant, pro se
Schmidt, atty
Comments:
The Court gives a pro se one more chance in her denied claim based on procedural lapses by the Commission to properly send a complete record on appeal. It chastised the commission for representing it sent "all" records on appeal which excluded 3 denied motions to introduce additional evidence and a 4th motion to offer additional evidence which was not ruled on.
Claimant appears to allege conspiracy and fraud in the "process."
The claimant notes: "The disappearance and reappearance of the Appellant's fourth motion brings credibility to the Appellant's claim of corrupt fraudulent behavior she faced throughout the Worker's Compensation process"
The court notes: "While Rowe's last conclusion may be hyperbolic, her frustration is real and is shared by this Court."
The court notes appeals based on 287.495.1 requires service of "all" documents and papers and "all" documents filed with the Commission are "relevant" papers even though relevant is not defined.
It notes:
....when the Commission fails to fulfill those duties and only includes in the legal file a subset of the documents and papers on file in the matter of its own choosing, it usurps and defeats the parties' and the reviewing court's ability to determine which documents filed with the Commission are necessary and applicable to the issues on appeal. The Commission's selective inclusion of documents in the legal file also frustrates the transparency and accountability purposes underlying section 287.495.1, it creates the appearance that the Commission is concealing information possibly relevant to the review process, unfairly impacts and hinders the appellate review process and undermines the parties', the reviewing court's and the public's confidence that the Commission's challenged decision can withstand a fair review based on the whole record."
.
The commission initially certified it had filed a complete record which omitted the first three denied motions. The commission supplemented the file after it was ordered by to provide the missing documents. The court of appeals reversed the denial and remanded the case when the Commission had failed to grant or deny claimant's fourth motion to submit additional evidence as required by the state regulations.
The opinion from the court of appeals omits additional information in the Commission case that the claim is 11 years old, claimant was represented by two previous attorneys who withdrew, and the case was denied when claimant did not offer medical evidence to prove her case. 2019 MO WCLR LEXIS 54.
