We acknowledge that there is no indication that claimant specifically raised the rule of proof prior to closing arguments. On the other hand, it is understandable that claimant would not raise the rule of proof because no medical evidence in the record implicated work exposure other than that with SAIF's insured until after the hearing. See Bennett v. Liberty Northwest Ins. On the other hand, considering our determination that it is permissible for claimant to invoke the rule of proof in this situation, we consider it appropriate to allow the parties the opportunity to further develop the record regarding this belatedly raised issue. We may remand a case for further evidence taking if we find that the case has been improperly, incompletely or otherwise insufficiently developed.
Remand is appropriate upon a showing of good cause or other compelling basis.
For example, a compelling basis for remand exists when the record is devoid of evidence regarding a legal standard that goes into effect while review of a case is pending. Here, for the reasons expressed above, we have found it appropriate to allow claimant to rely on the rule of proof. The proceedings to admit this additional evidence shall be conducted in any manner that the ALJ deems achieves substantial justice. Thereafter, the ALJ shall issue a final, appealable order. This matter is remanded to ALJ Marshall for further proceedings consistent with this order.