Opinion
CLAIM NO. F413014
OPINION FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2008
Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
Claimant appears Pro Se.
Respondent represented by the Honorable Susan M. Fowler, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.
ORDER
Presently before the Commission is Claimant's motion to introduce additional evidence not introduced at the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge. After consideration of claimant's motion, Respondent's objection thereto and all other matters properly before the Commission, claimant's motion must be denied.
Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(c)(1) (Repl. 2002) provides that all evidence must be submitted at the initial hearing on the claim. 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 result of the case; and that the claimant was diligent in presenting the evidence to the Commission. Mason v. Lauck, 232 Ark. 891, 340 S.W.2d 575 (1960); Haygood v. Belcher, 5 Ark. App. 127, 633 S.W.2d 391 (1982).
The Commission has broad discretion with reference to admission of evidence and our decision will not be reversed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion. Clark v. Peabody Testing Service, 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 Belcher, supra, the Court of Appeals set forth the prerequisites for admission of newly-discovered evidence: (1) the newly-discovered evidence must be relevant; (2) it must not be cumulative; (3) it must change the result of the case; and (4) the party seeking to introduce the evidence must be diligent.
Claimant who appeared pro se at the hearing asserts in her motion that she wants a few pages of medical reports submitted on appeal. The administrative law judge ruled that the statute of limitations bars claimant's claim. These documents do not address that issue and thus would not change the result. They appear to be cumulative to the other medical evidence that was introduced. This evidence obviously existed but was just not introduced by claimant at the hearing. Because claimant cannot meet the requirements to have new evidence introduced, her motion must be denied.
Accordingly, claimant's motion to introduce new or additional evidence on appeal, is hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman.
________________________________ KAREN H. McKINNEY, Commissioner
________________________________ PHILIP A. HOOD, Commissioner