From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stevens v. Cooper Engineered Products

Before the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission
Mar 14, 2005
2005 AWCC 48 (Ark. Work Comp. 2005)

Opinion

CLAIM NO. F009122

ORDER FILED MARCH 14, 2005

Upon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.

Claimant represented by the HONORABLE GREG GILES, Attorney at Law, Texarkana, Arkansas.

Respondents represented by the HONORABLE MICHAEL J. DENNIS, Attorney at Law, Pine Bluff, Arkansas.


ORDER

Presently before the Commission is claimant's Motion To Remand For Taking Additional Evidence. After consideration of the claimant's motion, response by respondents, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that the claimant's motion should be denied.

The Administrative Law Judge issued an opinion February 4, 2005, wherein he found that the claimant failed to prove entitlement to additional benefits. Subsequent to the opinion, the claimant filed a notice of appeal and now seeks a remand in order to present medical reports not introduced at the hearing. 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); Quin v. Webb Wheel Products, 52 Ark. App. 208, 915 S.W.2d 740 (1996), supplemental opinion 52 Ark. App. 213, 923 S.W.2d 287 (1996); Johnson v. American Pulpwood Co., 38 Ark. App. 6, 826 S.W.2d 827 (1992).

The claimant submitted medical records from Dr. Dickins, Dr. Mason and Dr. Seale at the hearing. He now seeks to introduce additional reports from Dr. Mason and two other doctors, which he did not introduce at the hearing.

While claimant was pro se at the hearing and is currently being represented on appeal by counsel, this does not relieve claimant of the burden of presenting evidence at his hearing to prove his claim.

Accordingly, we find that the claimant has failed to show due diligence in having these records at the hearing since they were available at the same time as the records he did introduce. They are not newly discovered by any means.

Therefore, we find that the claimant's motion should be, and hereby is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________ OLAN W. REEVES, Chairman

________________________________ KAREN H. McKINNEY, Commissioner

Commissioner Turner dissents.


Summaries of

Stevens v. Cooper Engineered Products

Before the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission
Mar 14, 2005
2005 AWCC 48 (Ark. Work Comp. 2005)
Case details for

Stevens v. Cooper Engineered Products

Case Details

Full title:ERIC STEVENS, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. COOPER ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, EMPLOYER…

Court:Before the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission

Date published: Mar 14, 2005

Citations

2005 AWCC 48 (Ark. Work Comp. 2005)