From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Needham v. Harvest Foods

Before the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission
Apr 1, 1998
1998 AWCC 124 (Ark. Work Comp. 1998)

Opinion

CLAIM NO. E407259

ORDER FILED APRIL 1, 1998

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

Claimant represented by the HONORABLE GARY VINSON, Attorney at Law, Batesville, Arkansas.

Respondents represented by the HONORABLE JOSEPH KILPATRICK, JR., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas.


ORDER

[2] This matter is currently before the Commission on remand from the Court of Appeals to settle the record. After reviewing claimant's Motion to Supplement the Record, respondents' objection thereto, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we find that claimant's motion must be denied.

In an opinion filed October 13, 1997, this Commission found, among other things, that the claimant failed to prove entitlement to benefits pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-505(a) by a preponderance of the evidence. In reaching our finding, we stated:

Until it was determined that claimant actually sustained a compensable injury in the Administrative Law Judge's opinion first claim filed December 19, 1995, we find that it was reasonable for respondent to act as it did. In fact, the Administrative Law Judge noted on page 5 of that opinion: `Moreover, until the physicians determined that her underlying condition had been changed by her activity at work, it was unclear whether the symptoms were the result of a mere recurrence of the previous injury or the result of an aggravation of her condition or a new injury.'

Claimant now seeks to supplement the record in this case with her response to pre-hearing questionnaire (filed with the Commission on or about February 8, 1995, but never offered into evidence at the hearing). The claimant asserts that this document is relevant to the issues on appeal since it contains office notes from claimant's treating physicians which classify claimant's condition as an aggravation of a preexisting condition and which indicate two specific injuries.

We initially note that the claimant has not attached to her motion the proffered response to the pre-hearing questionnaire (or the medical records referred to in her motion) for our review.

Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-705(c)(1) (Repl. 1996) provides that all evidence must be submitted at the initial hearing on a 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 he was diligent in presenting the evidence. Mason v. Lauck, 233 Ark. 591 [ 232 Ark. 891], 340 S.W.2d 575 (1980) [(1980)]; see also Haygood v. Belcher, 5 Ark. App. 127, 633 S.W.2d 391 (1982).

In the present case, we find that the claimant has failed to show that she was diligent in presenting the evidence. Moreover, the claimant has failed to demonstrate that anything prevented her from offering the 1995 response to pre-hearing questionnaire response into evidence at the hearing on the present claim held on October 8, 1996. In addition, since the claimant has failed to even identify and attach any of the medical documentation to her motion, we find that the claimant has failed to show that any new evidence would change the result of her appeal.

Therefore, for the reasons discussed herein, we find that the claimant's motion to supplement the record on file with the Arkansas Court of Appeals must be, and hereby is, denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Commissioner Humphrey did not participate.


Summaries of

Needham v. Harvest Foods

Before the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission
Apr 1, 1998
1998 AWCC 124 (Ark. Work Comp. 1998)
Case details for

Needham v. Harvest Foods

Case Details

Full title:CATHY NEEDHAM, EMPLOYEE, CLAIMANT v. HARVEST FOODS, EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT…

Court:Before the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission

Date published: Apr 1, 1998

Citations

1998 AWCC 124 (Ark. Work Comp. 1998)