On February 27 and March 10, 1992, a contested case hearing was held in (city), Texas, with hearing officer presiding as the hearing officer. The hearing officer determined that the claimant, (claimant name), appellant herein, did not sustain an injury within the course and scope of his employment with his employer, (employer name), on (date of injury). Accordingly, the hearing officer decided that respondent, the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, is not liable to appellant for benefits under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 8308-1.01 et seq. (Vernon Supp. 1992) (1989 Act). Appellant states that he disagrees with the decision of the hearing officer because the respondent had “false witness.” Respondent asserts that the decision is correct and asks that appellant’s appeal be denied.
DECISION
Because a complete record of the contested case hearing is not available for our review, we reverse and remand.
The hearing was tape recorded. There is no indication that a court reporter was at the hearing. Significant portions of the tape recorded testimony of three witnesses, (witnesses names), are inaudible. The inaudible portions of the testimony are on original tape No. 5. Article 8308-6.42 of the 1989 Act requires the Appeals Panel to consider the “record developed at the contested case hearing.” See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92153 decided May 29, 1992. The hearing officer may be able to avoid having to recall the aforementioned witnesses for additional testimony if an audible tape recording of their testimony can be located or if the tapes being returned with this decision can be sufficiently enhanced. In any event, it is necessary upon remand that the record be reconstructed sufficiently so that this panel can fully review all of the testimonial evidence, statements of counsel, and rulings of the hearing officer.
We also request that the hearing officer certify whether original tape No. 2 side 2, and original tape No. 4, which are blank, were used to record any portions of the proceedings. It appears to us that they were not so used because original tape No. 3 side 1 appears to pick up the proceedings where original tape No. 2 side 1 left off, and original tape No. 5 side 1 appears to pick up the proceedings where original tape No. 3 side 2 left off, although portions of original tape No. 5 then become inaudible. If this is the case, the hearing officer should so certify the same to us. If this is not the case, then any part of the record that was meant to be recorded on the blank tapes should also be reconstructed.
We reverse and remand for appropriate reconstruction of the record. Pending resolution of remand, final decision is not rendered.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
Joe Sebesta – Appeals Judge