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 March 1, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable injury of ___________, extends to and includes an injury to her cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, but does not extend to her right leg, and that the claimant has had disability as a result of the compensable injury of ___________, from November 25, 1998, to December 15, 1998, from January 18, 1999, to February 3, 1999, and from March 4, 2000, through the date of the CCH. The claimant appealed the hearing officer’s decision that the compensable injury does not extend to her right leg, and the respondent (carrier) responded. In Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 011314, decided July 26, 2001, the Appeals Panel remanded the case to the hearing officer for reconstruction of the record because Claimant’s Exhibit No. 1 was not in the appeals file. On remand, the missing exhibit was included in the CCH record. In the decision on remand, the hearing officer made the same determinations as in her original decision. The claimant again appealed the hearing officer’s determination that the compensable injury does not extend to the right leg, and the carrier responded, requesting affirmance. There is no appeal of the hearing officer’s determinations that the compensable injury extends to an injury to the claimant’s cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, and that the claimant has had disability for the time periods found by the hearing officer.
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
The claimant was injured at work when one box fell on her right shoulder and another box fell on her left shoulder. She did not fall down. With regard to the claimant’s right leg, the medical reports, including diagnostic tests, indicate that the claimant’s right leg pain is due to lumbosacral nerve root irritation. The hearing officer’s finding that the claimant did not sustain harm or damage to the physical structure of her right leg as a result of her compensable injury is supported by sufficient evidence and is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986). Accordingly, we affirm the hearing officer’s determination on the appealed issue.
However, we note that in the hearing officer’s statement of the evidence, the hearing officer wrote that the claimant’s right leg pain appears to be a component of her lumbar injury, and that, in its response, the carrier appears to agree with that statement when it states that the hearing officer properly found that the claimant’s right leg pain was not an injury under the 1989 Act, but was a component of a back injury, and that the evidence indicates that any right leg pain resulted from pain radiating from the back to the leg. We point out that under Section 408.021(a) an employee who sustains a compensable injury is entitled to all health care reasonably required by the nature of the injury as and when needed, and that the employee is specifically entitled to health care that: (1) cures or relieves the effects naturally resulting from the compensable injury; (2) promotes recovery; or (3) enhances the ability of the employee to return to or retain employment. Consequently, if the claimant’s right leg pain is due to her compensable lumbar spine injury, as appears to be the case, she would be entitled to medical benefits reasonably required by the nature of that injury as set forth in Section 408.021.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a self-insured governmental entity) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
SUPERINTENDENT
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge