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 15, 2001. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant) first certification of maximum medical improvement (MMI) and impairment rating (IR) assigned by Dr. N on May 8, 2000, became final under Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE ANN. § 130.5(e) (Rule 130.5(e))(repealed effective January 2, 2002). In his appeal, the claimant seeks reversal on sufficiency grounds. There is no response in the file from the respondent (carrier).
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant’s first certification of MMI and IR assigned by Dr. N on May 8, 2000, became final under Rule 130.5(e). The claimant alleged that he never withdrew his initial, unchallenged timely dispute of the certifications made May 26, 2000. The carrier argued that he did, and introduced into evidence the claimant’s purported written withdrawal. The hearing officer took official notice of the claim file, to the extent of the Dispute Resolution Information System notes showing that the claimant contacted the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) via telephone, on July 31, 2000, and (upon request from the Commission) in writing (received by the Commission August 15, 2000) in order to withdraw his dispute. It is undisputed that the claimant reurged his dispute February 6, 2001, outside of the 90 days allowed by Rule 130.5(e).[1] We have reviewed this determination and conclude that the issue involved fact questions for the hearing officer. The hearing officer found that the claimant withdrew his dispute of Dr. N’s certification within 90 days of receiving it. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). The hearing officer reviewed the record and resolved what facts were established. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determination is sufficiently supported by the record and is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
THE CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS, SUITE 750, COMMODORE I
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Terri Kay Oliver – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge
- 1 We note that the hearing officer, in his statement of the evidence, wrote that the evidence did not indicate that Dr. N’s certification of the claimant’s MMI and IR were invalid for any other reason, e.g., failure to properly apply the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, third edition, second printing, dated February 1989, published by the American Medical Association, a clear misdiagnosis, a previously undiagnosed condition, or prior improper or inadequate treatment. ↑