CLAIM NO. F612693
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED JULY 31, 2008
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant presented pro se.
Respondent No. 1 represented by HONORABLE ERIC NEWKIRK, 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 request to introduce additional evidence on appeal. After considering 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.
In an opinion filed May 7, 2008, the Administrative Law Judge found that the claim should be dismissed with prejudice because of the claimant’s failure to cooperate with discovery, failure to abide by the Commission orders and failure to timely prosecute the claim. The claimant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on April 2, 2008. He called the
Page 2
Administrative Law Judge’s office stating he was sick and was given twenty (20) days to provide written documentation from his healthcare provider supporting his reasons for failing to appear at the hearing. The claimant was informed that failure to provide this documentation would result in an order of dismissal with prejudice. The claimant failed to provide the necessary documentation and the Administrative Law Judge entered an order of dismissal with prejudice.
On June 27, 2008, the claimant filed a Motion to Submit an MRI report. Both respondents filed answers to the claimant’s motion objecting to the claimant’s motion.
Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(c)(1) (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; that it would change the result of the case; and that the claimant was diligent in presenting the evidence to the Commission. Mason v. Lauck, 232 Ark. 891, 340 S.W.2d 575 (1960);Haygood v. Belcher, 5 Ark. App. 127, 633 S.W.2d 391 (1982).
We find that the claimant was not diligent in presenting this evidence. The claimant was given numerous opportunities to pursue his claim and he failed to do so. As a result, the claimant’s claim has been dismissed with prejudice. The claimant failed to cooperate with discovery, failed to abide by Commission orders and failed to timely prosecute the claim. Accordingly, the claimant’s motion should be denied.
Therefore, after considering the claimant’s motion, the respondent’s response thereto, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we deny the
Page 3
claimant’s motion to submit additional evidence on appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman
___________________________________ KAREN H. McKINNEY, Commissioner
Commissioner Hood dissents.