CLAIM NO. E608254
GLEN DIRLING, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. MID AMERICAN TRANSPORT, INC., UNINSURED EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED JUNE 6, 1997
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by ROBERT R. CLOAR, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by WAYNE HARRIS, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
[1] ORDER
[2] This claim comes on for review on claimant’s motion to allow rebuttal testimony. After reviewing claimant’s motion, respondent’s response thereto and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that claimant’s motion should be denied.
[3] Claimant seeks to introduce rebuttal testimony offered from a witness who has already testified on claimant’s behalf. Claimant had an ample opportunity to solicit the information he now seeks to introduce through testimony through claimant’s testimony and the testimony of Marty Helms when Mr. Helms originally testified at the hearing.
[4] Claimant’s counsel advised the Administrative Law Judge at the conclusion of the hearing that he wished to call witnesses for rebuttal. When requesting that the record be left open, claimant’s counsel advised the Court, “I want to talk to them first, and maybe it will be that I will be able to advise you that I don’t and that will close the record, but I have got to find out. They are not here.” Claimant’s counsel further advised “as soon as I can talk to them, I will get back to you.” The Court advised that the record would remain open “About a week, at least?” Claimant’s counsel responded in the affirmative. There is no indication in the file, nor in claimant’s motion to allow rebuttal testimony, that claimant’s counsel in fact advised the Court within the one week time frame allowed by the Court whether additional rebuttal testimony would be necessary. Claimant’s motion filed April 17, 1997, stated that claimant’s counsel was unable to contact the rebuttal witness “until recently.” However, there is no evidence that the Court was ever advised of claimant’s counsel’s inability to contact the necessary witnesses within the one week time frame or any time before the opinion was filed.
[5] The record is not to remain open indefinitely. The record was to remain open for one week in order for claimant’s counsel to advise the Administrative Law Judge whether additional rebuttal testimony was necessary. The one-week time frame came and went without any word from claimant’s counsel to the Administrative Law Judge regarding the requested rebuttal testimony. In our opinion, the Administrative Law Judge acted properly in closing the record and in rendering her opinion at that time. Accordingly, we find that claimant’s motion to allow rebuttal testimony should be denied.
[6] IT IS SO ORDERED.
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
[7] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.
