Under these circumstances, we conclude that the ALJ abused his discretion in not continuing the hearing to allow claimant to present the final rebuttal evidence. Although the ALJ determined that the deposition of Dr. Takacs addressed all points raised in Exhibit 79A, claimant's attorney obviously did not have Dr. Takacs' report when the deposition occurred. Thus, claimant's attorney did not have the opportunity to inquire regarding its contents. While this may ultimately prove not to be significant, we, nevertheless, conclude that it is in the interests of substantial justice and consistent with Board procedural rules that claimant's request for cross-examination or rebuttal be granted. We may remand for further evidence if we determine that the case has been improperly, incompletely or otherwise insufficiently developed.
Remand is appropriate upon a showing of good cause or other compelling basis.
In addition, to merit remand for consideration of additional evidence, it must be clearly shown that material evidence was not obtainable with due diligence at the time of the hearing. Here, because the ALJ improperly refused to hold the record open for cross-examination or rebuttal, and because claimant could not have obtained rebuttal evidence with due diligence at the time of hearing, we find that the record has been incompletely or otherwise insufficiently developed, and that claimant has established a compelling reason to grant the motion for remand. The submission of this additional evidence shall be made in any manner which ALJ Podnar determines will achieve substantial justice. This matter is remanded to ALJ Podnar for further proceedings consistent with this order. Following these further proceedings, ALJ Podnar shall issue a final, appealable order.