However, just as the reviewing trial court may exercise its discretion to extend the deadline for filing the record, Knapp v. Mo. Local Gov't Employees Ret. Sys. , 738 S.W.2d 903, 910-11 (Mo.App. 1987), so it may, in its discretion, decide not to extend the time — that is, it may dismiss the suit. Bland v. City of Trenton , 618 S.W.2d 438, 441 (Mo.App. 1981); Gore v.Wachner , 558 S.W.2d 333, 335 (Mo.App. 1977). (The failure to file a record is akin to failure to prosecute, for which the trial court has the inherent power to dismiss a civil or criminal action.
The language of section 536.140.4 is not a mandate for the trial court to consider further evidence; it is permissive only. Eddington v. St. Francois Cty R-III Bd. of Ed., 564 S.W.2d 283 (Mo.App. 1978); Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App. 1977). Petitioner had its opportunity to present its evidence at the hearing.
In determining whether administrative findings are supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record, this Court may consider only the record that was before the administrative body. Missouri Real Estate Commission v. Steger, 509 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Mo.banc 1974); State ex rel. Favazza v. Ketchum, 367 S.W.2d 542, 546 (Mo. 1963); Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App. 1977); § 536.140.2, RSMo 1978; Rule 100.07(b)(3).
As a general rule, judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to matters that arose before the administrative agency and deals only with questions of law on the face of the record, and bars consideration of evidence other than that before the agency. Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App. 1977). Section 536.140.4, RSMo (1994), however, provides that a court may hear and consider evidence of alleged irregularities in the proceedings or agency unfairness not shown in the record; but it is discretionary with the trial court as to whether it will hear the additional evidence.
We note that, had Mr. Sturdevant sought the Superintendent's own testimony or other evidence regarding the claimed violation of § 536.080.2, § 536.140.4 allows a circuit court to depart from the general rule that judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to matters on the agency record, so that the circuit court can consider further evidence of irregularities in procedure. Gore v. Wochner , 558 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App. 1977). Mr. Sturdevant, however, did not seek such a determination by the circuit court in the case at bar.
"Judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to matters that arose before the administrative agency and deals only with questions of law that appear on the face of the record, thus precluding consideration of evidence other than that before the agency." Id. at 227[2] (citing Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334[2] (Mo.App. 1977)). Such limitation is imposed by § 536.140, RSMo 1986, which reads in pertinent part:
The use of the word "may" in section 536.140.2 and .4 indicates that it is discretionary with the court as to whether it will hear additional evidence. Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App. 1977). See Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. v. Potts, 802 S.W.2d 520, 524-25 (Mo.App. 1990), for a thorough discussion of the application of the Administrative Procedure Act as the functional equivalent to special statutes providing review by certiorari in zoning decisions and the interrelationship of these laws.
Under these circumstances we will not convict the Commission of error for refusing to apply the 10% figure to the total disability. Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334 (Mo.App. 1977). The point is denied.
The use of the term "may" reflects that the granting of such an evidentiary hearing is within the discretion of the trial court. Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333 (Mo.App. 1977) [3, 4]. On remand the trial court should permit Gerig to establish on the record his specific grounds for seeking such a hearing. The court can then exercise its discretion as to the need for such a hearing bearing in mind that justice is best served where litigants have an opportunity to present their evidence to the fact-finder.
Judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to matters that arose before the administrative agency and deals only with questions of law that appear on the face of the record, thus precluding consideration of evidence other than that before the agency. Gore v. Wochner, 558 S.W.2d 333, 334[2] (Mo.App. 1977). The nature of the hearing before the trial court is one of review, not de novo.