BENTLEY v. RINECO, 1997 AWCC 137

CLAIM NO. E600536

RICHARD BENTLEY, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. RINECO, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT

Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED MARCH 13, 1997

Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.

Claimant represented by the HONORABLE DEWEY MOORE, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Respondents represented by the HONORABLE FRANK B. NEWELL, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.

[1] ORDER
[2] This claim comes before the Commission on two pending motions. The first is a Motion For Leave To Submit Additional Oral And Documentary Evidence Before The Full Commission, filed December 2, 1996. The second is a Motion For Reconsideration And Clarification of December 5, 1996 Order, filed December 19, 1996. After careful consideration of claimant’s motions, respondents’ objections thereto, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that the claimant’s motions must be denied.

[3] 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 he was diligent in presenting the evidence to the Commission. Mason v. Lauck, 232 Ark. 891, 340 S.W.2d 575
(1960). [4] The claimant has attached eleven (11) exhibits to his Motion For Leave To Submit Additional Oral And Documentary Evidence Before The Full Commission. Five (5) of these exhibits were attached to the claimant’s Motion For Order Granting An Additional Period Of Temporary Total Disability Benefits And Directing That Respondents Timely Pay Medical Benefits, which the Full Commission denied on December 5, 1996. Two (2) of the six (6) new exhibits attached to the latest motion are medical bills. Of the remaining four (4) exhibits, none assert that the claimant is entitled to temporary total disability benefits; in fact, three (3) of the new exhibits state that the claimant is able to continue working on a restricted basis. The evidence presented in claimant’s motion is not relevant and would not change the result of the case. We find, therefore, that the Motion For Leave To Submit Additional Oral And Documentary Evidence Before The Full Commission should be denied pursuant toMason v. Lauck, supra. [5] We also find that the Commission’s December 5, 1996, order stands on its own and needs no further clarification. [6] Accordingly, for the reasons discussed herein, we find that the Motion For Leave To Submit Additional Oral And Documentary Evidence Before The Full Commission and Motion For Reconsideration And Clarification of December 5, 1996 Order must be, and hereby are, denied. [7] IT IS SO ORDERED.

ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman MIKE WILSON, Commissioner

[8] Commissioner Humphrey concurs.