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 August 3, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the issues before him by determining that the first certification of maximum medical improvement (MMI) and impairment rating (IR) became final pursuant to Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.5(e) (Rule 130.5(e)) and that the appellant’s (claimant herein) compensable injury did not extend to and include an injury to his lumbar, thoracic, and cervical spine. The claimant appeals, contending that the hearing officer erred in finding that his compensable injury did not extend to and include an injury to his spine. The claimant also argues that the hearing officer erred in finding that the first certification of MMI and IR became final when the certifying doctor failed to rate all body parts that were injured pursuant to the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, third edition, second printing, dated February 1989, published by the American Medical Association (AMA Guides). Finally, the claimant argues that the translator’s inadequate knowledge of the Spanish language led to losing information needed to support the claimant’s position. The respondent (carrier herein) replies that the hearing officer’s determination that the first certification of MMI and IR became final is correct. The carrier also argues that the hearing officer’s resolution of the extent-of-injury question was sufficiently supported by the evidence.
DECISION
Finding sufficient evidence to support the decision of the hearing officer and no reversible error in the record, we affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
EXTENT OF INJURY
The question of the extent of injury is a question of fact for the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93613, decided August 24, 1993. There was conflicting evidence concerning the extent of the claimant’s injury. We will only overturn a factual finding of a hearing officer when the great weight and preponderance of the evidence is contrary to such a finding. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). In light of the conflicting evidence in the record, we do find this to be case and affirm the hearing officer’s extent-of-injury determination.
RULE 130.5(e) ISSUE
The claimant makes the same argument in the present case that the appellant made in Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 011745, decided August 29, 2001, which was that since the first certification did not include a rating for the entire injury, it contained a significant error on the part of the certifying doctor in applying the AMA Guides and, therefore, could not become final pursuant to Rule 130.5(e)(1). We rejected this argument in Appeal No. 011745 and do so in the present case for the reasons set out in that opinion.
TRANSLATION
The claimant asserts that the quality of the translator caused information needed to prove his case to be lost. The claimant provides no explanation of what information he believes was lost and failed to raise this issue at the CCH. In light of this, we find no grounds for reversal based upon the quality of the translation at the CCH.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
GEORGE MICHAEL JONES
9330 LBJ FREEWAY, SUITE 1200
DALLAS, TX 75243.
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge