CLAIM NO. F601311
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2008
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by Honorable Donald E. Prevallet, Attorney at Law, Blytheville, Arkansas.
Respondent No. 1 represented by Honorable Melissa Wood, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent No. 2 represented by Honorable Judy Rudd, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
ORDER
This matter is currently before the Full Workers’ Compensation Commission on the claimant’s Petition to Amend and Supplement Brief. After considering the claimant’s Petition, the respondent’s response thereto, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that the claimant’s motion should be denied.
In an opinion filed on August 15, 2007, an Administrative Law Judge found that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury. The claimant filed a notice of appeal with the Commission on September 4, 2007. On January 28, 2008, the claimant filed a Motion to Amend and Supplement Brief. Specifically, the claimant stated that she received a letter dated December 10, 2007, addressed to the Second Injury Fund wherein the respondent’s joined the Second Injury Fund as a party to the claimant’s claim. In that
Page 2
letter, the claimant asserts that the respondent’s admitted that the claimant suffered a compensable injury while employed by the respondent employer. The letter specifically stated:
As the basis for the Respondent’s claim of Second Injury Fund liability, they state that Claimant suffered a compensable injury while employed with Respondent/Employer; that such injury has resulted in permanent disability or impairment; that Claimant had a pre-existing disability or impairment; that after the present compensable injury, the degree of overall disability or impairment is greater than would have resulted from the compensable injury alone. . . .
The claimant contends that this statement was an admission against interest made after the briefs on appeal were filed and that the claimant is entitled to amend her brief to include this admission. The respondent objected to the admission of this statement.
The Commission will treat the claimant’s motion as a motion to submit additional evidence. The Workers’ Compensation Commission has broad discretion with reference to the admission of evidence, and its decision will not be reversed absent a showing of abuse of discretion.W.W.C.
Page 3
Bingo v. Zwierzynski, 53 Ark. App. 288, 921 S.W.2d 954 (1996);Linthicum v. Mar-Bax Shirt Co., 23 Ark. App. 26, 741 S.W.2d 275 (1987);Southwest Pipe Supply v. Hoover, 13 Ark. App. 144, 680 S.W.2d 723
(1984); Clark v. Peabody Testing Service, 265 Ark. 489, 579 S.W.2d 360
(1979). Moreover, the Commission is given a great deal of latitude in evidentiary matters; specifically, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a) (Repl. 2002) states that the Commission “shall not be bound by technical or statutory rules of evidence or by technical or formal rules of procedure. . . .” Additionally, the Commission is directed to “conduct the hearing, in a manner as will best ascertain the rights of the parties.” Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(a); Bryant v. Staffmark, Inc., 76 Ark. App. 64, 61 S.W.3d 856 (2001); Clark, supra. With regard to additional evidence, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(c)(1)(A) (Repl. 2002) 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;
Page 4
that it would change the result of the case; and that the claimant was diligent in presenting the evidence to the Commission. Hargis Transportv. Chesser, 87 Ark. App. 301, 19 S.W.3d 309 (2004); Haygood v.Belcher, 5 Ark. App. 127, 633 S.W.2d 391 (1982); Mason v. Lauck, 232 Ark. 891, 340 S.W.2d 575 (1960).
We find that the motion should be denied. The statement the claimant seeks to introduce as an admission of liability is in a form letter that the respondent’s sent to the Second Injury Fund to join them into the claimant’s claim. It was not intended to be an admission of compensability in any shape or form. The respondent contends that it was an oversight to include that statement and we have to agree. The letter is clearly a form letter. The evidence is not relevant.
Therefore, after considering the claimant’s motion, the respondent’s response thereto, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we deny the claimant’s Petition to Amend and Supplement Brief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 5
___________________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman
___________________________________ KAREN H. McKINNEY, Commissioner
___________________________________ PHILIP A. HOOD, Commissioner
Page 1