CLAIM NO. E714761
JEANNIE WRIGHT, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT v. LAND O’FROST, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED JANUARY 6, 2000
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant appeared Pro Se.
Respondent represented by JOHN D. DAVIS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
ORDER
[1] This matter is currently before the Commission on the respondents motion to strike portions of the claimant’s brief. The claimant did not file a response to the respondent’s motion. After considering the respondent’s motion and the claimant’s lack of response thereto, we find that the respondent’s motion should be and is hereby granted.
[2] This matter is currently on appeal to the Commission from an opinion issued on September 17, 1999, where the Administrative Law Judge found that the claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury. The claimant has filed her appeal with the Commission pro se.
[3] On November 18, 1999, the claimant filed a brief with the Commission. The brief contains a typewritten letter as well as five handwritten pages. The handwritten portion of the brief is the first-hand account of the claimant’s story of her alleged injury.
[4] Under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. §
11-9-705(c)(1)(A), all evidence must be presented at the hearing. The claimant was represented at the hearing by counsel and had an opportunity to present her account of the alleged injury at the hearing. 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 results of the case; and that the claimant was diligent in presenting the evidence. Mason v. Lauck,
232 Ark. 891,
340 S.W.2d 575 (1980); See also, Haygood v. Belcher,
5 Ark. App. 127,
633 S.W.2d 391 (1982). In the present matter, the claimant’s first-hand account of what happened is cumulative and will not change or justify a different result.
[5] Therefore, for all the reasons set forth herein, we find that the respondents motion to strike portions of the claimant’s brief should be granted. We assure the parties that the claimant’s appeal will be conducted de novo and that the Commission will review the record and will not consider any evidence that is not contained within the Commission’s record.
[6] IT IS SO ORDERED.
[7] _______________________________
ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman
_______________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
Commissioner Humphrey dissents.
