This appeal arises under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (formerly V.A.C.S. Article 8308-1.01 et seq.) (1989 Act). A contested case hearing was held in (city), Texas, on September 20, 1993, (hearing officer) presiding. The two unresolved issues were whether the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI), and if so, when and with what whole body impairment; and whether the claimant is entitled to be examined by a doctor designated by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission). The carrier, who is the appellant in this action, alleges that the hearing officer erred in determining that Dr. Y was not an agreed-upon designated doctor and by concluding that the claimant has not reached MMI nor been assigned an impairment rating. It also alleges error in the hearing officer’s failing either to consider a benefit review conference agreement signed by the parties, or to make a finding concerning whether good cause existed to set aside the agreement. No response was filed by the claimant.
DECISION
Determining that the request for review was not timely filed and that the jurisdiction of the Appeals Panel has not been properly invoked, the decision of the hearing officer has become final pursuant to the provisions of Section 410.169.
Records of the Commission indicate that the decision of the hearing officer was distributed to the claimant and to the carrier’s Austin representative on October 15, 1993, by cover letter dated October 14, 1993. In its request for review the carrier stated that it received such decision on October 19th.
Section 410.202(a) provides that a party desiring to appeal the decision of the hearing officer must do so not later than 15 days after receiving the decision. See also Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §§ 143.3(a)(3) (Rule 143.3(a)(3)), which provides that a request for review shall be presumed to be timely filed if it is mailed on or before the 15th day after the date of receipt of the hearing officer’s decision, and received by the Commission or other party not later than the 20th day after the date of receipt of the hearing officer’s decision.
In this case, the fifteenth day after October 19th is November 3rd. However, the carrier’s request for review was postmarked November 5th, and was date stamped as received by the Commission on November 10th. Therefore, such request was not timely either under the statute or Rule 143.3.
Because Section 410.169 provides that the decision of a hearing officer regarding benefits is final in the absence of a timely appeal by a party, and because the carrier’s
appeal was not timely filed, the hearing officer’s decision is final and this panel has no jurisdiction to review such decision.
Lynda H. Nesenholtz – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Joe Sebesta – Appeals Judge
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge