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 August 7, 2001. The appellant (self-insured) appealed the hearing officer’s determination that the respondent (claimant) had disability as a result of the injury sustained on _______________, beginning on June 15, 2001, and continuing through the date of the CCH. In Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 012074-s, decided October 24, 2001, we affirmed that disability determination, subject to the outcome of a remand of the case for the hearing officer to determine whether the claimant’s post-injury earnings (PIE) from self-employment exceeded her average weekly wage (AWW). Along with its appeal, the self-insured offered new evidence for the first time on appeal, which we declined to consider. The self-insured also appealed the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant did not have PIE after May 10, 2000. We overruled previous cases which had held that self-employment income does not qualify as wages, and remanded for the hearing officer to further consider and develop the evidence to determine the claimant’s AWW, and what weeks, if any, the claimant’s PIE were equal to or more than the AWW, which in turn would decide the disability issue. The claimant responded to the initial appeal, urging affirmance.
The remand hearing was scheduled for November 6, 2001, but the parties resolved the remanded issue by agreed stipulations, which the hearing officer incorporated in her decision on remand. No further hearing was held. In the decision on remand, the hearing officer essentially issued the same decision as earlier issued, with additions based upon the stipulations. The case has now returned to us with a request from the self-insured that the decision of the hearing officer be reformed. The claimant has not submitted a response to the self-insured’s request.
DECISION
Affirmed, as reformed.
The self-insured requests that the Appeals Panel undertake the following actions:
1)Strike any reference in paragraph 3 of the Hearing Officer’s Statement of Evidence that Claimant’s income from the party rental business is not considered wages or is not calculable as such. Additionally, strike any reference to the fact that the Carrier is not allowed to adjust the Claimant’s temporary income benefit rate after May 10, 2000.
2)Strike Finding of Fact #4, which is inconsistent with the Hearing Officer’s ultimate Decision on Remand.
3)Strike Finding of Fact #5, which is inconsistent with the Hearing Officer’s ultimate Decision on Remand.
The self-insured seeks the above reformations for the sake of clarity and to avoid confusion concerning the hearing officer’s decision. We agree that such changes are appropriate, and we reform the hearing officer’s decision and order in accordance with the self-insured’s request.
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer, as reformed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (CARRIER) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
SUPERINTENDENT
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge