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 23, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by approving the respondent’s (claimant) request for spinal surgery. The appellant (carrier) appealed and the claimant responded.
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in approving the claimant’s request for spinal surgery. Section 408.026 and Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 133.206 (Rule 133.206) pertain to the spinal surgery second opinion process. Rule 133.206(a)(13) provides that a concurrence is a second opinion doctor’s agreement that the surgeon’s proposed type of spinal surgery is needed. Rule 133.206(a)(14) provides that a nonconcurrence is a second opinion doctor’s disagreement with the surgeon’s recommendation that a particular type of spinal surgery is needed. Rule 133.206(k)(4) provides that, of the three recommendations and opinions (the surgeon’s, and the two second opinion doctors’), presumptive weight will be given to the two which had the same result, and they will be upheld unless the great weight of the medical evidence is to the contrary; and that the only opinions admissible at the hearing are the recommendations of the surgeon and the opinions of the two second opinion doctors.
The hearing officer determined that the claimant’s second opinion doctor concurred with the surgeon’s recommendation and that the great weight of the other medical evidence is not contrary to the recommendation for spinal surgery. We conclude that the hearing officer’s decision 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. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 010160, decided March 8, 2001 (the second opinion doctor does not have to agree on the approach (anterior, posterior, instrumentation, cages, etc.) or on the number of levels within the region in which the recommended surgery will be performed); and Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 010762, decided May 15, 2001 (second opinion doctor’s narrative report that concurred with recommended fusion without specifically mentioning the recommended decompression did not render the opinion a nonconcurrence).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge