CLAIM NO. E503383
MAUREEN WILLIAMSON, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. DOLLAR GENERAL STORE, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED NOVEMBER 6, 1996
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by PRO SE.
Respondent represented by WILLIAM GRIFFIN, III, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
[1] ORDER
[2] This case comes on review before the Full Commission on claimant’s motion for an extension of time file her brief and to submit additional evidence. Claimant is proceeding with her appeal to the Full Commission pro se. The opinion of the Administrative Law Judge was filed on June 12, 1996. Claimant’s notice of appeal was filed with the Commission on July 3, 1996. A briefing schedule was entered and claimant’s brief was originally due on August 2, 1996. On August 1, 1996, claimant filed a motion with the Commission requesting an extension to file her brief and to submit additional evidence. Respondent responded stating that although they did not object to a extension beyond the original filing date, respondent objected to the submission of additional evidence. The extension to file claimant’s brief has been granted and a new briefing schedule has been entered.
[3] Claimant had an opportunity at the hearing to present all relevant evidence necessary to prevail on her claim. Claimant has failed to show that any “new” evidence was not available prior to her hearing. Claimant has simply stated that in her opinion her attorney did not introduce all medical records and that she currently needs an appointment to get additional evidence.
[4] 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 a 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) sets 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.
[5] We find that claimant has not met the requirements set forth in Haygood v. Belcher. Accordingly, claimant’s motion to submit additional evidence is, hereby, denied.
[6] IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES W. DANIEL, Chairman ALICE L. HOLCOMB, Commissioner
[7] Commissioner Humphrey dissents.
