Opinion ID: 2202655
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Further hearing

Text: 2. (a) Medical Examination. Under § 176.155 the injured employee must submit to examination by the employer's physician at reasonable times upon the employer's request. While no reason has been given for the commission's refusal to compel the examination and while the request was not unreasonable, it would seem that compelling such an examination after the referee's decision and pending an appeal would involve the discretion of the commission. In Nelson v. Krause, 201 Minn. 123, 275 N.W. 624, the court held that the commission did not abuse its discretion in refusing to compel an examination after the referee's award had been made where it determined that such an examination was not necessary. Here, the commission did not abuse its discretion in refusing to compel examination by relator's physician where instead it ordered an examination by a neutral physician who was made available to both parties. (b) Additional Evidence. Under § 176.421, subd. 6(2), the commission, on appeal from a decision of a referee, may hear other evidence. There is nothing in the statute that makes it mandatory for the commission to hear additional testimony, but instead it is vested with discretion in that regard. Rule 26(a), Rules of Practice of the Industrial Commission, outlines the procedure to be followed in seeking a hearing for additional evidence before the commission. Again, it places no obligation upon the commission to grant a hearing in all cases. While it might have been preferable for the commission to accept the proffered testimony, we are not prepared to say that its refusal to do so is an abuse of discretion, particularly since it can at any time in the future consider a change in circumstances pursuant to a motion to modify the award. [6] Respondent is allowed $250 attorneys' fees in supreme court. Affirmed.