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 September 8, 1999, in_______, Texas, with _________presiding as hearing officer. The single issue at the CCH was what is the appellant’s (claimant) correct impairment rating (IR). The hearing officer determined that the correct IR was zero percent as certified by a designated doctor. The claimant appeals, urging that he was not given an adequate examination by the designated doctor, that the report of his treating doctor proved his ratable injury (claimant also attached another letter from his treating doctor to his appeal), and that his depression should have been considered. Respondent (self-insured) urges that the document attached to the appeal not be considered and that there is sufficient evidence to support the determinations and decision of the hearing officer.
DECISION
Affirmed.
Claimant testified that on __________, he sustained injuries to his right foot, leg, groin, and low back when he stepped on some shelves and twisted and fell. He treated conservatively with several doctors, and was examined for an independent medical evaluation by a carrier-selected doctor, Dr. K (Dr. K), on __________. Dr. K rendered a report which reviewed diagnostic tests and medical records and which found the claimant was at maximum medical improvement on __________, and had a zero percent IR for what Dr. K describes as a simple sprain. The claimant disagreed with this rating and Dr. T (Dr. T) was selected by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission as the designated doctor. Dr. T examined (claimant disputes any meaningful physical examination) the claimant and reviewed the medical records and rendered a certification dated January 12, 1999, of a zero percent IR. Dr. T cited normal MRI readings and noted that the claimant’s weight of 409 pounds caused his difficulty in getting around. Dr. T also responded to the disagreement with his rating expressed by Dr. R (Dr. R), who was claimant’s treating doctor.
Dr. R stated her opinion that the claimant should be given a rating under Table 49, Section IIC of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, third edition, second printing, dated February 1989, published by the American Medical Association (AMA Guides) to which Dr. T replied that he found no objective findings during his exam and that he felt the proper category for the claimant was Section IIA of Table 49 for which a zero percent IR was listed. Subsequently, the benefit review officer (BRO) wrote and asked for Dr. T’s range of motion (ROM) measurements since they had not been included with his report. Dr. T responded with the recording of the measurements.
Claimant stated that he had gained about 80 pounds since the incident of __________, as a result of the injury and that he had a recurrence of depression which had been under control. He also stated that Dr. T did not use any instruments and did not do ROM measurements other than a single straight leg raise. Although depression was not a part of the injury, as it was earlier denied by the self-insured and not pursued by the claimant, claimant feels that his IR should include depression. Records show that the claimant had a history of treatment for depression. Claimant urged that the designated doctor did not properly examine him and that the doctors were using his weight against him. He wants a new designated doctor and feels that he should get a rating for his depression.
Initially, for purposes of this appeal, we do not consider the letter of September 27, 1999, from Dr. R. As we have previously held, the Appeals Panel generally considers only the record developed at the CCH and the request for review and reply. Section 410.203; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 971771, decided October 22, 1997. In this regard, we also note that the letter is basically cumulative of Dr. R’s previous disagreement with Dr. T’s rating.
Regarding the absence of a rating for claimant’s depression, there is nothing to show that depression was a part or extension of the compensable injury under consideration here. To the contrary, depression as related to this injury was apparently disputed by the self-insured at an earlier time and was not further pursued by the claimant. The designated doctor assesses an IR for a compensable injury and not other conditions not a part or extension of the compensable injury. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 951095, decided August 22, 1995.
The hearing officer apparently did not accept claimant’s testimony that an improper or inadequate examination was performed by Dr. T in rendering his certification of IR. In this regard, conflicts in the evidence are resolved by the fact-finding hearing officer. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ); Section 410.165(a). There was evidence that Dr. T responded to disagreements with his rating and that he provided the measurements requested by the BRO. In addition, there was evidence that his rating was consistent with Dr. K’s assessment. While the treating doctor, Dr. R, was not in agreement, this does not mandate a rejection of Dr. T’s report. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92412, decided September 28, 1992. To the contrary, Dr. T’s report has presumptive weight and is only overcome if the great weight of the other medical evidence is shown to be contrary thereto. Section 408.125(e). That is not the situation here as found by the hearing officer. We have reviewed the evidence of record and cannot conclude that his findings and conclusion were so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust. Employers Casualty Company v. Hutchinson, 814 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. App.-Austin 1991, no writ).
Not finding legal error or that the evidence is insufficient to support the decision of the hearing officer, we affirm the decision and order.
Stark O. Sanders, Jr. – Chief Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
Dorian E. Ramirez – Appeals Judge