287.460. Division hearings, findings sent to parties and insurer — mediation services, division to establish procedures, requirements. — 1. The division, through an administrative law judge, shall hear in a summary proceeding the parties at issue and their representatives and witnesses and shall determine the dispute by issuing the written award within ninety days of the last day of the hearing. The hearing shall be concluded within thirty days of the date of commencement of the hearing, except in extraordinary circumstances where a lengthy trial or complex issues necessitate a longer time than ninety days. All evidence introduced at any such hearings shall be reported by a competent reporter appointed by the division or be recorded by electronic means. The award, together with a statement of the findings of fact, rulings of law and any other matters pertinent to the question at issue, shall be filed with the record of proceedings, and a copy of the award shall immediately be sent by electronic means or in the case of an unrepresented employee, by United States mail, to the parties in dispute and the employer's insurer.
2. The division of workers' compensation shall develop by rule procedures whereby mediation services are provided to the parties in a claim for workers' compensation benefits whereby claims may be mediated by the parties at a prehearing conference when the division determines that a claim may be settled or upon application for a mediation settlement conference filed by either party.
3. The division may require the parties to produce at the mediation conference all available medical records and reports. Such mediation conference shall be informal to ascertain the issues and attempt to resolve the claim or other pending issues. Such mediation conference may be set at any time prior to the commencement of the evidentiary hearing and nothing in this section shall be interpreted to delay the setting of the matter for hearing. Upon the request of any party, a person providing mediation settlement services shall be disqualified from conducting any evidentiary hearing relating to the claim without limiting the rights conferred by section 287.810.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
35
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1953–2023 · leading case:
Smith v. Ozark Lead Co., 741 S.W.2d 802 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
Smith v. Ozark Lead Co., 741 S.W.2d 802 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 11× “" Awards by an AU under § 287.460, RSMo 1978, are eligible for review by the Commission under § 287.”
Bell v. Arthur's Fashions, Inc., 858 S.W.2d 760 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 9× “Claimant asserts (1) that the Commission’s decision was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 287.460, RSMo 1986; and (2) that the Commission erred in finding that claimant did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment.”
Seeley v. Anchor Fence Co., 96 S.W.3d 809 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “The particular rule is set out as follows: Within sixty (60) days after the submission of the case or the filing of briefs, whichever is later, the administrative law judge shall issue the award, together with a statement of findings of fact, but in no event longer than ninety…”
Eighmy v. Tandy/O'Sullivan Indus., 867 S.W.2d 688 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 7× “480, RSMO, in that notice of the dismissal was not mailed to Teresa Eighmy as required by Section 287.460, RSMO, so the twenty day time limit did not begin to run until Teresa Eighmy received notice of the dismissal and the Application for Review was filed within twenty days…”
Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc., 685 N.W.2d 12 (Minn. 2004).
· cites it 2× “152, §§ 10B-10C (2004); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 287.460 (2004); S.D. Codified Laws § 62-7-37 (2004).”
Hawkins v. Emerson Elec. Co., 676 S.W.2d 872 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “480, RSMo 1978, affirming an award of an administrative law judge (“judge”), § 287.460, RSMo 1978, of the Division of Workers’ Compensation.”
Corp. v. Joplin Cement Co., 337 S.W.2d 252 (Mo. 1960).
· cites it 2× “” The Commission’s findings of fact are meager and do not clearly show the theory upon which the Commission reached its decision, but in view of the nature of the issues and the state of the evidence in this case their sufficiency need not be determined.”
Jackson v. Stahl Specialty Co., 310 S.W.3d 707 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “In considering a compromise agreement, the administrative law judge is not called upon to determine a dispute and render an award as provided in section 287.460 RSMo.... Because we have no statutory authority to consider the Application for Review from the administrative law…”
Grant v. Fletcher, 564 S.W.2d 944 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 5× “Section 287.460, RSMo 1969, provided that the division of workmen’s compensation shall hear evidence relating to claims upon which the parties cannot agree “through a referee”, and that “[a]ll evidence introduced at any such hearings shall be reported by a competent reporter…”
Ossery v. Burger-Baird Engraving Co., 256 S.W.2d 805 (Mo. 1953).
· cites it 3× “The findings, rulings and award of the referee, Section 287.460 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., as well as the final award of the commission, § 287.”
Alcorn v. McAninch Corp., 236 S.W.3d 111 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “480, made by the Commission upon review of an award under section 287.460, and that the Commission’s award fully disposed of the controversy between the parties.”
Lawson v. Emerson Elec. Co., 833 S.W.2d 467 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
“§ 287.460. 1 The commission, upon application of Emerson Electric Co.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.