CLAIM NO. E506388
LINDA JO ROBINSON, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. GARDNER NURSING HOME, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and ALEXSIS, CARRIER, RESPONDENT Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED AUGUST 12, 1996
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by KENNETH E. BUCKNER, Attorney at Law, Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by BETTY J. DEMORY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
[1] ORDER
[2] This matter comes before the Full Commission on claimant’s motion for an extension of time within which to file her brief and to expand the record. After consideration of the claimant’s motion, the respondent’s response, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that the claimant’s motion for an extension of time to file her brief should be granted. However, we find that claimant’s motion to expand the record must be denied.
[3] Claimant is proceeding with her appeal to the Full Commission pro se. The opinion of the Administrative Law Judge was filed on March 21, 1996. Claimant’s notice of appeal was faxed to the Commission April 22, 1996 and received by mail on April 25, 1996. A briefing schedule was entered and claimant’s brief was due on June 14, 1996. Claimant requested an extension of time within which to file her brief and simultaneously requested that additional evidence be admitted. Respondent did not object to the extension of time to file a brief, however, respondent did object to expanding the record. [4] We find that the claimant’s request for an extension of time to file her brief should be granted as the opposing party does not object to this request. Therefore, we find that a new submission date and briefing schedule should be set. [5] However, we find that the claimant’s request that additional evidence be introduced into the record must be denied. Subsequent to the hearing, claimant wrote a lengthy letter to the Administrative Law Judge and is now asking that the letter be introduced into evidence. The letter does not contain any additional information that was not available to the claimant prior to the hearing. Claimant has simply failed to show that the “new” evidence claimant now wishes to introduce was not available prior to the hearing. Moreover, we note that the evidence is merely self-serving hearsay. A claimant is not entitled to two bites at the apple. The claimant was afforded an opportunity at the hearing to prove her claim and to present all necessary evidence to meet her burden of proof. Once a decision has been rendered against the claimant, a claimant cannot come back and attempt to now prove her case on appeal with additional evidence. Moreover, claimant has not shown that such evidence was not available prior to the initial hearing or that it would change the results. Haygood v.Belcher,
5 Ark. App. 127,
633 S.W.2d 391 (1982) set forth the prerequisites for remand by the Full Commission on proffer to present 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. Therefore, we find that the claimant’s motion to submit additional evidence must be denied. [6] IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman ALICE L. HOLCOMB, Commissioner
[7] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.