{"id":"full_commission-G900188-2023-09-20","awcc_number":"G900188","decision_date":"2023-09-20","opinion_type":"full_commission","claimant_name":"Clayton Mcwilliams","employer_name":"Arkansas State Police","title":"MCWILLIAMS VS. ARKANSAS STATE POLICE AWCC# G900188 SEPTEMBER 20, 2023","outcome":"granted","outcome_keywords":["granted:1"],"injury_keywords":[],"pdf_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/McWilliams_Clayton_G900188_20230920.pdf","source_index_url":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/","filename":"McWilliams_Clayton_G900188_20230920.pdf","text_length":3959,"full_text":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION \n \n \nCLAIM NO.  G900188 \n \nCLAYTON McWILLIAMS, \nEMPLOYEE \n \nCLAIMANT \nARKANSAS STATE POLICE,  \nEMPLOYER \n \nRESPONDENT \nPUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, \nINSURANCE CARRIER/TPA \n \nDEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL \nDISABILITY TRUST FUND \nRESPONDENT NO. 1 \n \n \nRESPONDENT NO. 2 \n \n  \n      \nOPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 20, 2023 \n \nUpon review before the FULL COMMISSION in Little Rock, Pulaski County, \nArkansas. \n \nClaimant represented by the HONORABLE GREGORY R. GILES, Attorney \nat Law, Texarkana, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents No. 1 represented by the HONORABLE CHARLES H. \nMcLEMORE, JR., Attorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \nRespondents No. 2 represented by the HONORABLE DAVID L. PAKE, \nAttorney at Law, Little Rock, Arkansas. \n \n \n ORDER \nThis matter comes before the Full Commission on the Respondent’s \nMotion to Introduce Newly Discovered Evidence. The Respondent seeks to \nsupplement the record with vocational rehabilitation reports from Systemedic \nand  TEEM  Academy.  After  considering  the  Respondent’s  motion,  the \nClaimant’s  response  thereto,  and  all  other  matters  properly  before  the \nCommission, we find that the Respondent’s motion should be granted.  \n\nMcWILLIAMS - G900188   2\n  \n \n \n Ark.  Code  Ann. §  11-9-705(c)(1)  provides that  all  evidence  must be \nsubmitted at the initial hearing on the claim.  In order to submit new evidence, \nthe  movant  must  show  that  the  new  evidence  is  relevant;  that  is  not \ncumulative; that it would change the result of the case; and that the movant \nwas diligent in presenting the evidence to the Commission.  Fred’s Stores of \nTennessee, Inc. v. Melvin Ely, 2012 Ark. App. 238.  \n In  the  present  case,  the  Respondent  argues  that  the  evidence  is \nrelevant  as  it  speaks  to  the  Claimant’s  willingness  to  return  to  work.  A \nclaimant’s lack of interest in pursuing employment with his employer, and \nnegative  attitude  in  looking  for  work  are  impediments to the Commission’s \nability  to  assess  wage  loss  disability. Logan  County  v.  McDonald,  90  Ark. \nApp.  409,  206  S.W.3d  258  (Ark.  App.  2005).  Therefore,  the  evidence  is \nrelevant to the issue at hand.  \n This evidence is not cumulative as it may present new insight on the \nClaimant’s  attitudes  towards  working  that  differ  from  those  opined  on \npreviously.  \n Additionally,  the  evidence  may  change  the  result  of  the  case.    As \nstated above, a claimant’s lack of interest in pursuing employment with his \nemployer, and negative attitude in looking for work are impediments to the \nCommission’s  ability  to  assess  wage  loss  disability. Logan  County  v. \nMcDonald, 90 Ark. App. 409, 206 S.W.3d 258 (Ark. App. 2005).  A claimant’s \n\nMcWILLIAMS - G900188   3\n  \n \n \nlack of interest, however, is not a complete bar.  Drake v. Sheridan Sch. Dist., \n2013 Ark. App. 150, 2013 Ark. App. LEXIS 154.  This evidence may change \nthe case at hand, as the ALJ opined directly on Claimant’s willingness to re-\nenter the workforce after a traumatic brain injury.  \n The  Respondent  was  diligent  in  presenting  the  evidence  to  the \nCommission. The additional evidence was not available to the Respondent \nat the time of the hearing with the ALJ.  The Respondent then filed the motion \nat hand in an attempt to rectify this issue.  \nTherefore, after considering the Respondent’s motion, the Claimant’s \nresponses thereto, and all other matters properly before the Commission, we \ngrant the Respondent’s motion to Introduce Newly Discovered Evidence and \nwill  assess  the  proper  weight  of  such  evidence  during  review  of  the \nsubstantive issues of the case.  \nIT IS SO ORDERED.  \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    SCOTTY DALE DOUTHIT, Chairman \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    M. SCOTT WILLHITE, Commissioner \n \n    ___________________________________ \n    MICHAEL R. MAYTON, Commissioner","preview":"BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G900188 CLAYTON McWILLIAMS, EMPLOYEE CLAIMANT ARKANSAS STATE POLICE, EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CLAIMS DIVISION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND","fetched_at":"2026-05-19T22:29:46.148Z","links":{"html":"/opinions/full_commission-G900188-2023-09-20","pdf":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/McWilliams_Clayton_G900188_20230920.pdf","source_publisher":"https://labor.arkansas.gov/workers-comp/awcc-opinions/full-commission-opinions/"}}