CLAIM NO. E006071
FRANCES BONE, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. RHEEM MANUFACTURING CO., EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH PA, INSURANCE CARRIER, RESPONDENT Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
OPINION FILED AUGUST 3, 1999
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by the HONORABLE EDDIE H. WALKER, JR., Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Respondents represented by the HONORABLE WAYNE HARRIS, Attorney at Law, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
[1]
ORDER [2] The claimant moves the Full Workers’ Compensation Commission to remand the above-styled matter to the administrative law judge for admission of additional medical evidence. After reviewing the motion, respondents’ response, and all other matters properly before the Full Commission, we find that the claimant’s motion must be denied. 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 she was diligent in presenting the evidence to the Commission. Mason v. Lauck,
232 Ark. 891,
340 S.W.2d 575 (1960). [3] For her new evidence, the claimant submits a packet of reports of treatment from The Bonati Institute For Advanced Arthroscopic Surgery and Gulf Coast Orthopaedic Center, Hudson, Florida, from March 25, 1999 through April 28, 1999. The impression of the Bonati Institute’s Dr. Anthony Mork includes lumbar radiculopathy, back pain/facet syndrome, bulging discs, and stenosis. The claimant also submits an operative report dated March 30, 1999, where Dr. Mork diagnosed back pain with radiculopathy to the left leg and performed surgery at L4/L5, and an April 6, 1999 operative report for arthroscopic laser arthrodesis/rhizotomy of the left facet joint with synthetic bone graft and autologous platelet gell patch at the L4-5 and L5/S1 levels. We note, however, that the record before the Commission already details lumbar disc degeneration, bulging, herniation, and radiculopathy. We also note that there are no medical opinions in the claimant’s new evidence indicating that the claimant’s additional treatment and surgery is causally related to the claimant’s 1990 work-related injury. We fail to see how this “new evidence” would affect the result of the case. [4] We further find that the claimant has not been diligent in seeking the medical treatment at issue if she intended to have reports of that treatment entered of record in this case as evidence. On June 18, 1998, the claimant requested a hearing on the issue of her entitlement to additional medical benefits after January 21, 1998, and a pre-hearing order was entered September 1, 1998. A full hearing was held February 16, 1999, with a subsequent opinion filed by the administrative law judge on April 13, 1999. The claimant apparently began treating at the Bonati Institute on March 25, 1999, and this treatment was not emergency-type treatment. We find that the claimant failed to establish that she was diligent under these circumstances. [5] Accordingly, for the reasons discussed herein, we find that the claimant’s motion to remand for admission of additional medical evidence must be, and hereby is, denied. [6] IT IS SO ORDERED. [7] ________________________________
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman ________________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner [8] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.