Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a review of the Industrial Commission's decision denying a petition to reopen a workmen's compensation claim. The claimant, through counsel, sought to reopen the claim but failed to initially include a required medical report per Commission regulations. A rehearing was requested but the claimant was absent, and no evidence was submitted at that time, though the possibility of later submission of medical evidence was discussed. Ultimately, medical reports were submitted months later, but not considered due to objections from the Fund's attorney and lack of a subsequent hearing. The court affirmed the Commission's decision, emphasizing the claimant's burden to provide sufficient evidence and highlighting procedural requirements, as the law stood prior to January 1969. The ruling was concurred by Judges Donofrio and Stevens, maintaining the original denial of reopening the workmen's compensation claim.
Legal Issues Addressed
Burden of Proof in Workmen's Compensation Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The claimant bears the responsibility to provide evidence sufficient to support reopening a workmen's compensation claim.
Reasoning: The court emphasized that the claimant bears the burden of proof and reiterated that additional evidence submitted after a hearing cannot be considered unless all parties consent.
Procedural Requirements for Rehearingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The claimant's absence at the rehearing and the failure to present evidence impacted the ability to reopen the claim.
Reasoning: During the hearing, Grimm was absent but represented by counsel, who noted Grimm was out of state. No evidence was presented.
Reopening of Workmen's Compensation Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The denial of the petition to reopen was affirmed because the petition lacked the necessary medical report as required by the Industrial Commission's regulations.
Reasoning: A writ of certiorari was issued to review the Industrial Commission's decision from 5 March 1969, which denied Grimm's petition to reopen a workmen's compensation claim.
Submission of Medical Evidence in Workmen's Compensation Hearingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Medical reports submitted after the hearing were not considered due to lack of consent from all parties, specifically the objection by the attorney for the Fund.
Reasoning: Approximately four months later, medical reports from Dr. Vaziri were submitted, but the Commission did not hold another hearing.