CLAIM NO. E806893
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED NOVEMBER 2, 1999
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant appears pro se.
Respondents represented by the HONORABLE MICHAEL MAYTON, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
[1] ORDER[2] In the above-styled matter, the claimant moves the Full Commission to allow presentation of additional evidence. [3] Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(c)(1) (Repl. 1997) provides that all evidence must be submitted at the initial hearing on the claim. In order to submit new evidence, the claimant must show that the new evidence is relevant; that it is not cumulative; that it would change the result of the case; and that the claimant was diligent in presenting the evidence. Mason v. Lauck, 232 Ark. 591, 340 S.W.2d 575 (1980); see also, Haygood v. Belcher, 5 Ark. App. 127, 633 S.W.2d 391 (1982). [4] In the present matter, the parties stipulated that the claimant suffered a compensable injury on May 23, 1998. The record before the Commission indicates that an MRI of the cervical spine taken in July, 1998 showed degenerative disc disease most evident at C5-C6, where there was also generalized disc bulging. Another cervical MRI conducted in February, 1999 showed chronic arthritic spurring and disc bulge at C5-6, in addition to a very small disc herniation at C7-T1. In an opinion filed June 14, 1999, an administrative law judge found that the claimant failed to prove that she is entitled to additional temporary total disability compensation or medical treatment at the respondents’ expense. The claimant, pro se, filed a timely notice of appeal, and the case was submitted to the Full Commission on September 8, 1999. [5] On September 29, 1999, the claimant filed her motion to present additional evidence, and the case is now on the Full Commission’s motion docket. The claimant presents another cervical MRI taken September 24, 1999. The MRI shows degenerative change focally at C5-6 where there is posterior disc bulge,similar in appearance to the February, 1999 study (our emphasis). Since the additional MRI testing proferred by the claimant is substantially similar to MRI already on record before the Commission, we find that this evidence is cumulative and will not change the result of the case. Therefore, we must deny the claimant’s motion. [6] Consequently, we find that the new evidence is cumulative and will not change the result of the case. We therefore deny the claimant’s motion and direct the Commission Clerk to re-submit the case for de novo review by the Full Workers’ Compensation Commission. [7] IT IS SO ORDERED. [8] ________________________________
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman
________________________________
MIKE WILSON, Commissioner