Opinion ID: 2000610
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: 3hearing before the commission

Text: The employee's final argument on appeal is that the Commission abused its discretion by refusing to grant her request for a hearing before the entire Commission. 26 M.R.S.A. § 1194(5) provides that: The commission may on its own motion affirm, modify or set aside any decision of an appeal tribunal on the basis of the evidence previously submitted in such case, or direct the taking of additional evidence, or may permit any of the parties of such decision to initiate further appeals before it. The employee concedes that the statute provides no right to a hearing before the Commission; the statutory provision gives the Commission discretion in the disposition of requests for supplemental hearings. The employee's statement of appeal indicated that she requested a hearing with the entire Commission because she [d]isagrees with the decision and . . . [has] new evidence to submit. However, the employee's statement of appeal gives no indication of the character or source of this allegedly new evidence. In addition, despite the employee's argument to the Superior Court on appeal, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the referee of the Appeal Tribunal promised the employee that she would be given an opportunity to present additional evidence at a later time. On these facts, we cannot say that the Commission's denial of an additional hearing before it was an abuse of discretion. The entry shall be: Appeal denied; judgment of the Superior Court affirmed. All concurring.