This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing was held on October 8, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) did not abuse its discretion in approving a change in treating doctor. The appellant (carrier) appeals, asserting that the record in evidence does not support the hearing officer’s determination and that the hearing officer erred in considering evidence outside of the record. No response was filed by the respondent (claimant).
DECISION
Affirmed.
On or about June 6, 2001, the claimant filed an Employee’s Request to Change Treating Doctors (TWCC-53) with the Commission, asserting that she had been released from her doctor’s care. The claimant’s request was based on a letter by her treating doctor dated May 29, 2001. In the letter, the claimant’s treating doctor, after indicating that the claimant felt uncomfortable with the clinic due to an alleged incident of sexual harassment which involved the claimant and the doctor’s assistant, stated “if she wishes to go on to see additional doctors, I do not wish to impose any barrier upon doing so. I leave the door open.” The request to change treating doctors was approved on June 22, 2001.
The carrier contends that the Commission abused its discretion in allowing the claimant to change treating doctors. The carrier asserts that the claimant was not released from her treating doctor’s care as was represented in the TWCC-53; rather, the claimant’s treating doctor merely acquiesced to the claimant’s request to seek a second opinion regarding her condition and treatment. Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 126.9(e)(2) (Rule 126.9(e)(2)) provides that the Commission may approve a change in treating doctor when the doctor chooses not to be responsible for coordinating the injured employee’s health care as described in Rule 133.3, regarding responsibilities of the treating doctor. The hearing officer could find that the letter referenced above indicates that the claimant’s treating doctor would no longer coordinate the claimant’s medical care, and that the claimant’s request to change treating doctors meets the requirements of Commission rules.
The carrier further asserts that the hearing officer erred in reaching Finding of Fact No. 11, as such finding was based on evidence outside of the record. Finding of Fact No. 11 provides:
11.On June 22, 2001, Commission records indicate that the commission was in contact with [treating doctor’s] office and understood that [treating doctor] had released Claimant from his care, and the commission approved the change to [new doctor] because of a release from [treating doctor’s] care.
No such records of the Commission are in evidence. Notwithstanding, while the hearing officer may have erred in considering Commission records not offered by the parties, or officially noticed by the hearing officer, such error is not reversible in view of the finding with regard to the treating doctor’s letter, discussed above. We have frequently noted that we review a decision of approval on change of treating doctors on an abuse of discretion standard. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 970686, decided June 4, 1997, and cases cited therein. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision maker acts without reference to any guiding rules and principals (Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. 1986)). In this case, whether the claimant was entitled to change treating doctors depended largely on the interpretation placed on the treating doctor’s May 29, 2001, letter. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the Commission abused its discretion in approving the claimant’s request to change treating doctors.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C.T. CORPORATION
350 NORTH ST. PAUL
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge