This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). On September 13, 2000, a contested case hearing (CCH) was held. Appellant (carrier) appealed. No response was received from claimant. The hearing officer decided that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on __________; that the carrier waived the right to contest compensability of the claimed injury by not contesting the injury in accordance with Section 409.021, and that the claimant had disability from January 21, 2000, through the date of the CCH.
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
The claimant testified that he was performing his job duties on __________, when he slipped in oil and fell, injuring his left hip and lower back. The claimant had left hip surgery in January 2000. In a Payment of Compensation or Notice of Refused or Disputed Claim (TWCC-21), the carrier recited that it first received written notice of the claimant’s claimed injury of __________, on December 16, 1999. On March 8, 2000, the carrier filed a TWCC-21 contending that the claimant was not injured in the course and scope of his employment. March 8, 2000, was more than 60 days after December 16, 1999. Section 409.021(c).
The hearing officer did not err in deciding that the claimant sustained a compensable injury because the carrier waived the right to contest compensability under Section 409.021(c). There is evidence of disability because of the left hip condition. The hearing officer did not err in deciding that the claimant has had disability. The carrier’s reliance on Continental Casualty Company v. Williamson, 971 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1998, no pet.), is misplaced because in the instant case the claimant has an injury which the carrier failed to contest the compensability of within 60 days of written notice of the injury. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 990135, decided March 10, 1999; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 991668, decided September 16, 1999.
The hearing officer did not err in not rewording the issues that were reported out of the benefit review conference. The carrier was apparently trying to avoid the waiver issue by requesting that the issues be reworded.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Kathleen C. Decker – Appeals Judge
Kenneth A. Huchton – Appeals Judge