Plaintiff argues that Dr. Esponnette's report, the most recent medical evaluation of her condition, should have been considered by the Board given its policy of providing a fair hearing for all parties and given the liberal evidentiary rules adopted by the Board. Dr. Esponnette's report was prepared a week after the MSRS hearing and over two months after the deadline for submission of new medical evidence set out in the pre-hearing order. The Board concluded that, given the administrative rules governing appeals from the Executive Director and plaintiff's failure to comply with those rules, it was not required to consider Dr. Esponnette's report. Administrative appeals are not within the original jurisdiction of the courts and are subject only to judicial review. We grant deference to an agency's interpretation of its own internal rules and procedures.
Deference is withheld only when the rule or regulation plainly compels a contrary result.
Atlantic Salmon v. Bd. of Environ. The rules favor the liberal admission of all relevant evidence. In furtherance of the above goals, MSRS has developed pre- hearing procedures. The rules provide that the hearing officer may hold a pre-hearing conference to identify and resolve disputes regarding the production and admissibility of evidence and to ensure a fair, efficient, and effective appeal process. The hearing officer is given the power, inter alia, to set deadlines for filings, to order any needed independent medical evaluations, to refer the case to the agency's medical board for evaluation in light of any new evidence, and generally to oversee the evidentiary issues in the case.