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 July 18, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue before him by determining that the respondent’s (claimant) compensable injury of ___________, includes an injury to the low back and pelvic areas.
On October 5, 2001, the hearing officer issued a Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) Order for Attorney’s Fees (Order), covering services for the period from May 8, 2001, through August 8, 2001, approving 14.80 hours of the 21.80 hours requested, for a total approved fee, including expenses, of $2,049.14 out of $2994.14 requested. The appellant (attorney) appeals, contesting the denial of 5.80 hours of Prepare for Proceeding time, denied for the reason “Ex Guideline/Unreasonabl”; .20 hours of Receive/Review documents time, denied for the reason “Ex Guidelines/Unreasonabl”; .20 hours of Receive/Review documents time, denied for the reason “Multiple Reasons”; and .80 hours for Attend Proceeding travel time, denied for the reason “Multiple Reasons.” The attorney argues that all of the denied Prepare for Proceeding time was reasonable and necessary to adequately represent his client at the CCH, and that the Justification Text attached to the Carrier’s Application for Attorney’s Fees (Application) explained the complex nature of the case and provided adequate support for the time submitted. Additionally, the attorney argues that the time spent traveling to and from the CCH was meaningful, necessary, and billable time spent in the furtherance of his client’s affairs. The appeal file contains no response from the claimant.
DECISION
Reversed and remanded.
The hearing officer denied the attorney’s request for .80 hours of travel time to and from the CCH, but approved the 2.60 hours he attended the hearing. The hearing officer’s stated reason for denying this time was that “[t]he attorney’s office is in the same city as the field office where the hearing was conducted.” Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 152.5(b)(1) and (c)(1) (Rule 152.5(b)(1) and (c)(1)) provide that an attorney is only allowed to be reimbursed for travel expenses when the attorney is required to attend a benefit review conference or hearing more than 25 miles from the attorney’s office nearest to the location of the conference or hearing. In this case, the attorney is not seeking reimbursement for travel expenses, he is seeking compensation for his time. The Appeals Panel has approved attorney time for reasonable and necessary travel. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 000495, decided April 13, 2000. We review attorney’s fees cases under an abuse of discretion standard. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 951196, decided August 28, 1995. It was an abuse of discretion for the hearing officer to deny the travel time to attend the CCH, as it was clearly reasonable and necessary for the attorney to be in attendance. We remand the denial of the attorney’s travel time back to the hearing officer for a determination as to what amount of time was reasonable and necessary for the attorney to travel to and from the CCH, and direct the hearing officer to adjust the Order accordingly.
On appeal, the attorney asserts that he submitted a Justification Text which adequately explained the fees he requested along with his Application. In his explanation for denying some of the requested fees for preparation time, the hearing officer stated that there was an absence of a Justification Text. Upon review of the record before us, there is no evidence of the Application or the Justification Text, yet at a minimum an Application must exist. Therefore, we remand the case back to the hearing officer to make a determination as to whether a Justification Text was submitted with the Application, and, if so, the hearing officer is directed to consider it and award attorney’s fees accordingly.
We reverse the hearing officer’s decision and order and remand the case back to the hearing officer for reconsideration consistent with this decision. Pending resolution of the remand, a final decision has not been made in this case. However, since reversal and remand necessitate the issuance of a new decision and order by the hearing officer, a party who wishes to appeal from such new decision must file a request for review not later than 15 days after the date on which such new decision is received from the Commission’s Division of Hearings, pursuant to Section 410.202 (amended June 17, 2001). See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92642, decided January 20, 1993. Saturdays and Sundays and holidays listed in Section 662.003 of the Government Code are not included in the computation of time.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN INTERSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
STEVE ROPER
1616 SOUTH CHESTNUT ST.
LUFKIN, TX 75901.
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge