Generally, a remand can be made in the light of additional evidence only if the claimant shows reason for the failure to present the evidence earlier.  The decision to grant or deny a request to remand a matter for the consideration of additional evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.[i]

It is to be noted that the appellate court has the power to remand a case to the agency for further consideration, if an appellate court feels that it is unable to exercise informed judicial review of a decision of an administrative agency because of an inadequate administrative record.[ii] Similarly, if a court feels that the additional evidence is material and the party seeking to supplement the record shown good reason for not presenting it before the agency, then the court can remand the matter to the agency for a new determination.  Evidence is considered to be material if it is reasonably capable of influencing the decision of an agency.[iii]

In Garcia v. Scolari’s Food & Drug, 200 P.3d 514 (Nev. 2009), the employee argued that the attorney who represented her during the administrative proceedings was neglectful of her claim and failed to present any medical evidence to support her claim.  The court found that the employee’s attorney pursued a deliberate trial strategy.  The court observed that it did not find any good reasons to remand the matter to the appeals officer.  The appeals officer’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.  Hence, the court denied the petition of the employee.

In Cotton v. McCulloh, 2005 WY 159 (Wyo. 2005), the court observed that if the court feels that the findings of the basic facts are inadequate to explain the rationale for the decision by an administrative agency, then the court can remand the matter to the agency to make additional findings.[iv] However, the court order that allows a motion to remand to the administrative agency for taking additional evidence will not vitiate the original decision taken by the agency.  It permits the agency to consider new evidence and to modify its decision as it deem fit.

[i] Garcia v. Scolari’s Food & Drug, 200 P.3d 514 (Nev. 2009),

[ii] Harrison v. Ppg Indus., 446 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1980)

[iii] Humboldt Community Schs. v. Fleming, 603 N.W.2d 759 (Iowa 1999)

[iv] See also Rodgers v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 2006 WY 65 (Wyo. 2006)