Employment: Workers’ Compensation-Work Accident or Occupational Disease

Claimant appealed the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which dismissed claimant’s application for full commission review of an administrative law judge’s adverse decision on claimant’s workers’ compensation claim. The commission found that claimant’s application failed to meet the statutory requirements for full commission review. On appeal, claimant argued that her application included sufficient information to identify the issues on which she sought review.

Where claimant merely stated what evidence she believed was the only credible evidence, claimant failed to meet the requirements to receive full commission review by not identifying the specific reasons why the ALJ’s decision was wrong.

Scott, J., concurring: “Here, in contrast, Claimant requested to file a brief.  In that situation, the Commission is to schedule briefing which, to cite its rule, “is to ‘identify the issues in dispute’ and discuss those issues.” Thus, a request for briefing, in this case or others, utterly changes the role of the application for review…”

Judgment is affirmed.

Crawford v. Ronald McDonald House Charities (MLW No. 73989/Case No. SD36028 – 8 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Sheffield, J.) Appealed from Labor and Industrial Relations Commission