DOUGLAS S. DEUTZ, Employee/Petitioner, v. LONE WOLF LOGISTICS, INC., and GREAT WEST CAS. CO., Employer-Insurer.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COURT OF APPEALS
AUGUST 3, 2012
VACATION OF AWARD - NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. Where the petitioner did not submit documentation or evidence to support his petition to vacate an award on stipulation based on newly discovered evidence, the petition is denied.
Petition to vacate award on stipulation denied.
Determined by: Milun, C.J., Johnson, J., and Stofferahn, J.
Attorneys: Douglas S. Deutz, pro se Petitioner. Richard W. Schmidt, Cousineau McGuire, Minneapolis, MN, for the Respondents.
PATRICIA J. MILUN, Judge
The pro se employee filed a petition to vacate an award on stipulation issued on October 20, 2009, on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Concluding the employee has not established good cause, we deny the petition.
Douglas Deutz, the pro se employee, and Lone Wolf Logistics, his employer, which was insured for workers’ compensation liability by Great West Casualty Company, signed a stipulation for settlement in October 2009. An award on stipulation was served and filed October 20, 2009. On July 28, 2010, the employee filed a petition to vacate the award on stipulation with this court, alleging fraud, mutual mistake of fact, and newly discovered evidence as bases for vacating the award. This court found that the employee had not provided evidence to show cause under any of the bases alleged, and denied the petition.
On February 6, 2012, the employee filed another petition to vacate the October 20, 2009, award on stipulation. This petition solely alleged newly discovered evidence as the basis for vacating the award. The employer and insurer objected to the petition.
The employee’s 2010 petition to vacate alleged fraud, mutual mistake of fact, and newly discovered evidence, while the 2012 petition only alleges newly discovered evidence as the basis for vacating the award. Neither petition was accompanied by documentation or evidence to support the employee’s allegations.
The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals has authority to vacate an award on stipulation and set aside the stipulation for settlement if the petitioner provides sufficient evidence to show cause to vacate the award. A request to set aside an award must be accompanied by relevant, admissible information or evidence of such significance as to have a bearing on the outcome of the dispute. Each request must specifically state the basis upon which cause to vacate the award may be found. The burden of proof lies with the petitioner seeking to vacate the award.
In the previous opinion addressing the 2010 petition, this court concluded that the employee had not established good cause to vacate the award on stipulation. Regarding the claim of newly discovered evidence, the court specifically stated:
There is . . . no newly discovered evidence in this case. Newly discovered evidence is evidence that existed at the time of the dispute but was not known by the parties. The employee’s argument is that his version of the incident on October 3, 2006, should have been accepted by the employer and insurer. This is not newly discovered evidence but is simply the employee re-arguing the position that he made at the time of the settlement.
In February 2012, the employee filed another petition to vacate accompanied by an affidavit. Again, the document did not identify the “newly discovered evidence” claimed in the affidavit nor did the employee attach any documentation, information or evidence to support his petition to vacate. Therefore, we conclude that the employee has not established good cause to vacate the award and the petition is, in all respects, denied.
 Deutz v. Lone Wolf Logistics, Inc., No. WC10-5151 (W.C.C.A. Nov. 15, 2010).
 Minn. Stat. §§ 176.461 and 176.521, subd. 3.
 Minn. R. 9800.1100, subp.1 (an application to set aside an award must be accompanied by supporting affidavits, medical reports, copies of documentary evidence and a memorandum of law).
 See Larson v. United Hosp., 53 W.C.D. 317, 327 (W.C.C.A. 1995).
 Minn. R. 9800.1100, subp. 2.
 Groshong v. The Light Depot, 65 W.C.D. 349, 355 (W.C.C.A. 2005).
 Deutz, slip op. at 3.
 Id. (citation omitted) (citing Gruenhagen v. Larson, 310 Minn. 454, 246 N.W.2d 565 (Minn. 1976)).