CLAIM NO. F105901
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED JULY 15, 2002
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented pro se.
Respondent represented by HONORABLE TERRY LUCY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
ORDER
This case comes on for review before the Commission on the pro se claimant’s motion to enter additional evidence. After consideration of the claimant’s motion, the respondent’s response thereto, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that the claimant’s motion should be denied.
Following a hearing held on March 13, 2002, the Administrative Law Judge found that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he sustained either a compensable physical injury or a compensable mental injury. At hearing, the claimant submitted into evidence two packets of medical documents, a bill of lading, photographs, Tennessee Department of Labor filings and information, and letters from Crawford Company. The claimant now seeks to admit an additional document, in the form of a seven-page handwritten account of what allegedly transpired at a Home Quarters store location in Missouri on April 8, 1999.
Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(c)(1) provides that all evidence must be submitted at the initial hearing on the claim. Haygood v. Belcher, 5 Ark. App. 127, 633 S.W.2d 391 (1982), sets forth the prerequisites for the Full Commission to admit newly discovered evidence: (1) the newly discovered evidence must be relevant; (2) it must not be cumulative; (3) it must change the result; and (4) the party seeking to introduce the evidence must be diligent. The Commission has broad discretion with reference to the admission of evidence, and the Supreme Court will not reverse that decision absent a showing of abuse of that discretion. Clarkv. Peabody Testing Service, 265 Ark. 489 579 S.W.2d 360 (1979); W.W.C.Bingo v. Zwierzynski, 53 Ark. App. 288, 921 S.W.2d 954 (1996); Linthicumv. Mar-Bax Shirt Co., 23 Ark. App. 26, 741 S.W.2d 275 (1987); SouthwestPipe and Supply v. Hoover, 13 Ark. App. 144, 680 S.W.2d 723 (1984).
In the present case, we find that the claimant failed to prove that he exercised diligence in obtaining and seeking to introduce the evidence. The evidence the claimant seeks to introduce was available prior to the hearing. Further, once a decision has been rendered against a party, that party cannot come back and attempt to prove its case on appeal with additional evidence. Therefore, his motion should be and is hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________ ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman
_______________________________ JOE E. YATES, Commissioner
Commissioner Turner dissents.