CLAIM NO. E318630
LYN SHERIDAN, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. KALLSNICK, INC., EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT and STATE FARM INSURANCE, CARRIER, RESPONDENT
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED MAY 22, 1996
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by HENRY H. BOYCE, Attorney at Law, Newport, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by CAROL L. WORLEY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
[1] ORDER
[2] This matter comes before the Commission on claimant’s motions for an extension of time to file his brief and to submit additional evidence. This case was originally scheduled for submission on March 20, 1996; however, due to the claimant’s motions it was removed from the submission docket.
[3] Claimant is proceeding with his appeal to the Full Commission pro se. The opinion of the Administrative Law Judge was filed December 12, 1995. Claimant’s notice of appeal was filed with the Commission on January 12, 1996. A briefing schedule was entered and claimant’s brief was due on February 9, 1996. On January 29, 1996, the claimant requested an extension to file his brief until March 19, 1996. Respondents responded stating that although they did not object to an extension beyond the original filing date, they did object to an extension of over forty days. On February 19, 1996, claimant wrote the Commission advising that an extension until March 19, 1996 is necessary due to his granddaughter’s spinal surgery on February 9, 1996. Claimant states that he is helping care for his granddaughter and expects to be out of town until the end of February.
[4] The claimant has stated a valid reason for an extension of time to file his brief. Claimant is not currently represented and is having to allocate personal time caring for family members. Therefore, we find that a new submission date and briefing schedule should be set. However, this case has been on appeal since January 1996, there has been ample opportunity for claimant to work on his appeal and once a new briefing schedule has been set an additional extension should not be granted without good cause shown.
[5] On March 4, 1996, claimant requested that additional evidence be introduced into the record. However, the evidence merely consists of a list of witnesses and an exhibit index. The claimant had an opportunity to present all relevant evidence at his hearing held before the Administrative Law Judge on September 25, 1995. There has been no showing that the “new” evidence claimant now wishes to introduce was not available prior to the September 25, 1995 hearing. Claimant has simply stated that such evidence is necessary to meet his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, however, there is no support for this statement.
[6] A claimant is not entitled to “two bites at the apple.” The claimant was afforded an opportunity at the hearing to prove his claim and to present all necessary evidence to meet his burden of proof. Once a decision has been rendered against the claimant, a claimant cannot come back and attempt to now prove his 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). Therefore, we find that claimant’s motion to submit additional evidence must be denied.
[7] IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman ALICE L. HOLCOMB, Commissioner
[8] Commissioner Humphrey concurs.
