This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on April 17, 2000. Pursuant to an agreement of the parties orally made on the record at the CCH, the hearing officer determined that the respondent’s (claimant) “low back injury is related to or caused by the compensable injury” and that the appellant (carrier) “disputed the extent of the claimed injury timely.” The carrier in its appeal asks for reformation of this decision “to more accurately reflect the understanding of the parties as evinced [sic] at the [CCH].” The appeals file contains no response from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
According to our review of the audiotape of the CCH, the hearing officer’s statement of the agreement of the parties accurately reflects that agreement as it appears in the record. As the carrier stated in its appeal, “[u]pon further reflection, it appears as though the wording could be misconstrued” to reflect that the carrier “has accepted a new low back injury or a new diagnosis in addition to the compensable injury.” The compensable injury of __________, included a low back injury. Such concerns of the carrier should have been attended to at the CCH. If the agreement is misconstrued to either parties’ detriment, the dispute resolution process will presumably be available.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
Alan C. Ernst – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Tommy W. Lueders – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge