In Price v Space Walker, (LIRC), 2000, The ALJ held that the filing of an answer more than 15 days but less than 30 days after the filing of a Claim was not an “admission” of accident arising out of the employment. He noted the extension of 30 days rule to file an answer applied retroactively because the case was pending at the time of the amendment of the rule of the Division to allow 30 days, not 15 days. (ALJ Knowlan)
In Lammert v Vess Beverages, Inc., 968 S.W.2d 720 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998), the Court of Appeals, Eastern District, held that the employer’s failure to file its answer within 15 days (now 30 days) of the Division’s acknowledgment of the claim results only in an admission of the facts as stated in the claim. It does not result in an admission of legal conclusions contained in the pleading.
In Ward v Mid-America Fittings, 974 S.W.2d 586 (Mo.App. W.D. 1998), the Court of Appeals, Western District, held that the employer’s failure to file an Answer to Claim within 15 days of the Division’s acknowledgment of the claim results in an admission of the factual statements in the claim.
In Lombard-Bock v Winchell’s Donut Shop, 939 S.W.2d 456 (Mo.App. W.D. 1996), the employer failed to file a timely answer to a Claim for Compensation and that was deemed to be an admission of facts in the claim showing that the accident occurred within the scope and course of employment, including how the accident occurred and the employee’s statement as to causation. However, such an answer cannot result in admission of legal conclusions contained in pleadings.
