73 Van Natta 48 (2021)
In the Matter of the Compensation of RANDY Q. NORDYKE, Claimant
WCB No. 20-00443
Oregon Worker Compensation
January 25, 2021
Unrepresented Claimant
Gallagher Bassett Ins Svc, Insurance Carrier
Reviewing Panel: Members Ousey and Woodford.
ORDER
ON REVIEW
Claimant,
pro se,1 requests review of Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) Fleischman’s order that dismissed as
untimely his request for hearing challenging a June 11, 2019,
Order on Reconsideration. With his request for review and
appellant’s brief, claimant has attached several
documents.2 We treat this submission as a motion to
remand to the ALJ for the taking of additional evidence.
See Juan H. Mendez, 60 Van Natta ; see also Judy
A. Britton, 37 Van Natta . On review, the issues are
timeliness of the hearing request and remand.
We
adopt and affirm the ALJ’s order with the following
supplementation to address the remand issue.
Our
review is limited to the record developed at hearing. ORS
656.295(5). We consider claimant’s post-hearing
submissions only for the purpose of determining whether
remand is appropriate.
[73 Van
Natta 49] We may remand to the ALJ only if we find that the
hearings record has been “improperly, incompletely or
otherwise insufficiently developed.” Id.
Remand is appropriate upon a showing of good cause or other
compelling basis. Kienow’s Food Stores v.
Lyster, 79 Or.App. 416 (1986). To merit remand for
consideration of additional evidence, it must clearly be
shown that the evidence was not obtainable with due diligence
at the time of the hearing and that the evidence is
reasonably likely to affect the outcome of the case.
Compton v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 301 Or. 641, 646 (1986)
(a compelling basis exists when the evidence: (1) concerns
disability; (2) was not obtainable at the time of the
hearing; and (3) is reasonably likely to affect the outcome
of the case).
Here,
some of claimant’s submissions duplicate exhibits
concerning the procedural timeliness issue that were admitted
at hearing. (See Exs. I: 7, 8, 10, 12; Exs...
