CLAIM NO. E814339
Before the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission
ORDER FILED DECEMBER 8, 2000
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant represented by HONORABLE TONA DEMERS, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Respondent represented by HONORABLE BETTY J. DEMORY, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
ORDER
This matter is presently before the Commission on the claimant’s Motion to Supplement the Record. After careful consideration of the claimant’s Motion, the response of the respondents thereto, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that the claimant’s Motion should be denied.
Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(c)(1) provides that all evidence must be submitted at the initial hearing on the claim. Haygood v. Belcher, 5 Ark. App. 127, 633 S.W.2d 391
(1982) sets forth the prerequisites for the Full Commission to admit 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. The Commission has broad discretion with reference to admission of evidence, and the Supreme Court will not reverse that decision absent a showing of abuse of that discretion. Clark v. Peabody TestingService, 265 Ark. 489 579 S.W.2d 360 (1979); W.W.C.Bingo v. Zwierzynski, 53 Ark. App. 288, 921 S.W.2d 954
(1996); Linthicum v. Mar-Bax Shirt Co., 23 Ark. App. 26, 741 S.W.2d 275 (1987); Southwest Pipe and Supply v.Hoover, 13 Ark. App. 144, 680 S.W.2d 723 (1984). In the present matter, we find that the claimant has failed to establish that she was diligent in presenting the evidence to the Commission. The claimant had ample opportunity to submit evidence at the hearing held on April 13, 2000. At the hearing, the claimant presented an extensive discussion regarding the alleged compensability of her claim. The claimant’s submission of additional information several months after the hearing and after an opinion has been issued in this case, is untimely. The claimant was aware of the issues to be addressed at the hearing and the fact that she had the burden of proof on the issues. It was only after an adverse opinion was issued that the claimant sought to introduce additional evidence. The claimant has not presented the Commission with any evidence to show why this information was unavailable at the time of the hearing.
Furthermore, once a decision has been rendered against a party, that party cannot come back and attempt to prove its case on appeal with additional evidence, particularly when the party was not diligent in procuring or presenting the additional evidence. The claimant’s documentary evidence should have been prepared seven days prior to the hearing, not over four months after the Administrative Law Judge’s opinion.
Therefore, we find that the claimant’s Motion to Supplement the Record must be, and is hereby, denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________ ELDON F. COFFMAN, Chairman
_______________________________ MIKE WILSON, Commissioner
Commissioner Humphrey dissents.