CLAIM NO. F011933
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED OCTOBER 29, 2002
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by HONORABLE EVERETT MARTINDALE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by HONORABLE WILLIAM F. SMITH, Attorney at Law, Russellville, Arkansas.
Decision of the Administrative Law Judge: Affirmed.
ORDER
The claimant in the above-styled matter moves the Full Commission to reconsider its decision denying additional benefits. After reviewing the evidence, pleadings, and all other matters properly before us, we deny the claimant’s motion.
In an opinion filed January 3, 2002, an administrative law judge found that the claimant failed to prove she was entitled to additional medical treatment or additional temporary total disability compensation. The Full Commission affirmed the administrative law judge in an opinion filed July 15, 2002. In a letter dated August 12, 2002, the claimant requested that the Full Commission reconsider its decision. The claimant contended that there was additional medical evidence which would enable her to prove she was entitled to additional reasonably necessary medical treatment. The Clerk of the Commission notified the respondents of the claimant’s motion and provided them with a copy of same, but the respondents did not reply.
Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(c)(1) 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 to the Commission. Mobbs v. City of Little Rock, Workers’ Compensation Commission F006071 (Nov. 3, 2001); Mason v. Lauck, 232 Ark. 891, 340 S.W.2d 575 (1960).
In the present matter, the claimant seeks to submit new evidence in the form of reports from Dr. Burba, Dr. Collins, and Dr. Mocke. Even if this evidence was relevant and not cumulative, our review indicates that these reports would not change the result of the case. In addition, the claimant was not diligent in presenting this new evidence. A pre-hearing conference was held on October 4, 2001, and a hearing before the Commission was held on December 12, 2001. An administrative law judge rendered an opinion on January 3, 2002, and the Full Commission affirmed the administrative law judge on July 15, 2002. The claimant did not submit the new evidence until October 8, 2002.
Therefore, the Full Commission finds that the claimant’s motion for reconsideration must be, and hereby is, denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________ ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman
______________________________ JOE E. YATES, Commissioner
Commissioner Turner dissents.