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 19, 2001. On the issue appealed, she determined that the respondent (claimant) had disability from his __________, compensable injury for the period from August 19, 2000, through April 11, 2001. She held also that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) abused its discretion in allowing the claimant to change his treating doctor.
The appellant (carrier) has appealed and argues that the claimant was released to full-duty work after a few weeks and that there is no evidence to support being off work for a longer period of time other than the opinion of the doctor whose appointment was disallowed in this CCH. The claimant responds by requesting affirmance.
DECISION
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision.
The hearing officer did not err in finding that the claimant had disability for the period prior to his release back to work. While medical evidence should certainly be considered by the hearing officer, it is not required, and the claimant’s testimony alone is sufficient to establish that an injury has caused disability. Gee v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 765 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. 1989). The hearing officer could therefore choose to ignore a release back to work and could still credit the opinion of the second treating doctor to the contrary, even if proper procedures were not followed by the Commission in approving a change to that doctor.
An appeals-level body is not a fact finder, and does not normally pass upon the credibility of witnesses or substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of fact, even if the evidence, as in this case, would support a different result. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Soto, 819 S.W.2d 619, 620 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1991, writ denied); American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Volentine, 867 S.W.2d 170 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1993, no writ). An MRI of the claimant’s knee showed a possible torn meniscus; although the orthopedic surgeon who released the claimant back to work felt that there was not a clinical correlation to this condition, the claimant testified that he did not want to go along with this doctor’s recommendation for surgery and that this led to the discharge back to work. He sought a second treating doctor when his condition continued to bother him.
We accordingly affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer as supported by sufficient evidence in the record.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C.T. CORPORATION SYSTEMS
350 NORTH ST. PAUL
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge