SMITH, J.
The insurer and the employee both appeal from the decision of the administrative judge. An incomplete transcript requires remand of the case for reconstruction of the record or hearing de novo.
The reviewing board cannot at this time provide proper appellate review because the record on appeal is incomplete. The stenographer who attended the hearing is no longer employed by the Department. Although efforts were made, the stenographic notes cannot be accurately and completely transcribed.
General Law c. 152, § 11B provides that, ". . . at the request of a party, a transcript . . . shall be forwarded to such party. . . ." The reviewing board must know the facts and evidentiary bases for a judge's decision in order to properly perform its appellate review function. Under these circumstances, where the transcript is unavailable, due process usually requires at a minimum reconstruction of the record sufficient for evaluation of the merits of an appeal and a determination of the correctness of the rulings. If reconstruction is not possible, a new hearing must be held. Fitzsimmons v. Sigma Instruments, Inc., 7 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 12, 14-16 (1993). We caution, as we did in Brown v. Pollack Corp., 7 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 205, 206 (1993), that reconstruction "serves neither the interest of economy nor of justice" where the appeal is grounded solely in credibility issues, and that pursuit of a frivolous appeal invites assessment of a penalty under § 14(1).
We direct the parties as expeditiously as is practicable to attempt to reconstruct the record of the testimony in accordance with the principles and guidelines set forth in Fitzsimmons, supra, 15-16. See Shaughnessy v. Kraft/S.S. Pierce, 8 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 329, 330, slip op. at 2 (1994); see also Higgins v. Westin Hotel, 8 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 303, 303 (1994).
As the hearing judge in this case no longer serves in that capacity, we forward the case to the senior judge for reassignment to an administrative judge to preside over any proceedings necessary to facilitate the reconstruction of the record. The judge in his discretion may elicit whatever testimony is deemed necessary for the reconstruction, see Commonwealth v. Duest, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 137, 145 (1988) (reconstruction may involve testimony of witnesses), or may order a hearing de novo. If the administrative judge determines the reconstruction to be sufficient to prosecute the appeal, the judge shall return the case to the reviewing board for an appellate decision on the merits.
So ordered.
Judges Kirby and Maze-Rothstein concur.