CLAIM NO. E706528
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED MARCH 19, 1999
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant appears pro se.
Respondents represented by the HONORABLE FRANK NEWELL, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
[1] ORDER[2] This Claim comes before the Full Commission on the claimant’s December 14 and December 23, 1998 Motions To Present New Evidence. After careful consideration of the claimant’s motions, the 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) (Repl. 1996) 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 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 (1980); seealso, Haygood v. Belcher, 5 Ark. App. 127, 633 S.W.2d 391 (1982); and, Norris Duncan v. WhirlpoolCorporation, Full Commission opinion filed August 29, 1995 (E317617). [4] In the present claim, a hearing was held before the administrative law judge on November 5, 1998. In an opinion and order filed December 7, 1998, the administrative law judge found that the claimant was not entitled to additional medical treatment from Dr. Ketcham and that his healing period ended on or before December 6, 1997, and therefore he was not entitled to additional temporary total disability benefits. [5] In claimant’s December 14, 1998 motion the claimant seeks to introduce an off work slip from Dr. Collins dated 12-9-97. Claimant states in his motion that this off work slip is already indicated in the medical reports but that this work slip verifies that. Claimant also seeks to introduce an April 2, 1998 letter from Steve Fenley of Goldman and Company, Inc. eliminating the position which the claimant held with the Company. [6] The respondents object to the December 14, 1998 Motion on the grounds that the new evidence would be cumulative in that the motion states that the substance of the new evidence is already present in medical reports introduced into evidence at the hearing before the administrative law judge and that the respondents do not have this document in their possession. Additionally, the respondents object to the April 2, 1998 letter from Goldman and Company, Inc. being admitted into evidence on the grounds that the claimant did not raise this issue at the hearing held November 5, 1998. [7] In claimant’s December 23, 1998 Motion, the claimant asserts that all of the medical evidence was not admitted into evidence. In that regard, the claimant states that he attempted to introduce his evidence and the Judge wouldn’t allow him to. Upon review of the hearing transcript, we find that at the beginning of the hearing the parties were given an opportunity to introduce their evidence into the record and the claimant did introduce two exhibits. In the Claimant’s Response to Respondents’ Motion to Deny the December 14 and December 23 Motions, the claimant has attached pages 13 and 14 of the hearing transcript. We see nothing prohibiting the claimant from introducing evidence into the record; the administrative law judge is simply requesting that the claimant not read the medical reports into the record. [8] The respondents object to the introduction of the additional evidence on the grounds that it would be cumulative, that the claimant was not diligent in presenting this evidence to the Commission, and that the admission of the evidence would not change the result of the case. [9] We find that the claimant failed to show that he was diligent in presenting the evidence to the Commission. There is nothing indicating that anything prevented the claimant from obtaining and presenting evidence at the hearing held November 5, 1998. We further find that the evidence is cumulative and that it would not change the result of the case. We also find that the April 2, 1998 correspondence from Goldman and Company was not an issue properly raised at the November 5, 1998 hearing. Therefore, we find that the December 14, 1998 and December 23, 1998 Motions To Present New evidence must be, and hereby are, denied. [10] IT IS SO ORDERED. [11] ________________________________
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman
_________________________________________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
[12] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.