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 25, 2000. The hearing officer determined that the compensable injury of the respondent (claimant) included injuries to her cervical and thoracic spine, right wrist, and bilateral shoulders, and also included a psychological disorder. The hearing officer also determined that claimant’s impairment rating (IR) is 39%, in accordance with the report of the designated doctor, Dr. W. Appellant (carrier) appealed these determinations on sufficiency grounds. Claimant responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
DECISION
We affirm in part; reverse and render in part; and reverse and remand in part.
Carrier contends the hearing officer erred in determining that claimant’s injury extended to a psychological condition, and to her right wrist, cervical and thoracic spine, and bilateral shoulders. Carrier asserts that claimant’s injury was to her back, right leg, and left wrist only. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the hearing officer’s determination that claimant’s injury extended to a psychological condition, claimant’s cervical and thoracic spine, and her bilateral shoulders 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).
Regarding the right wrist, claimant testified that she is not claiming a right wrist injury and the medical records mention a left wrist injury rather than a right wrist injury. The designated doctor discussed impairment to claimant’s “wrists” and did not appear to state “right” wrist impairment when he meant “left” wrist impairment. The Employer’s First Report of Injury or Illness (TWCC-1) does not constitute evidence of the extent of the injury. Section 409.005(f); Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 961450, decided September 11, 1996. Because the evidence simply does not support the hearing officer’s determination, we reverse the determination that claimant’s injury includes a right wrist injury and render a determination that it does not include a right wrist injury.
Carrier contends the hearing officer erred in determining that claimant’s IR is 39%. Carrier first asserts that the designated doctor was not impartial. The majority of the designated doctor’s complained-of comments, when considered in context, were made in reference to the role of doctors who consider the IR issue in general and whether the doctors who review this issue for an insurance carrier are motivated to follow the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, third edition, second printing, dated February 1989, published by the American Medical Association (AMA Guides). The designated doctor stated that his review was impartial, noting that one doctor wrote a report to carrier suggesting that the designated doctor was acting as a patient advocate. We perceive no reversible error in this regard.
Carrier next asserts that the 39% IR was incorrect because it included impairment for the cervical and thoracic spine and bilateral shoulders. In its brief, carrier does not attack the specifics of the impairment awarded regarding these body parts. Because we have affirmed the determination that the injury extends to these body parts, we perceive no error in this regard. Carrier complained that the designated doctor did not adequately respond to the four-page report from Dr. Y regarding the 39% IR, but does not specify what it contends the designated doctor ignored. Our review of Dr. Y’s letter indicates that Dr. Y thought the designated doctor rated noncompensable conditions, that he ignored what Dr. Y believed might be symptom magnification, and that the designated doctor seemed to “rail against” insurance companies. After the designated doctor was asked for clarification, the designated doctor stated that he rated only the compensable injury. The designated doctor discussed Waddell’s signs, his measurements, and whether he applied the AMA Guides in assessing impairment. Although the 39% IR appears to be quite high given the injury, we perceive no reversible error. Carrier next asserts that the IR should not have included four percent impairment for the right wrist and we agree.
Carrier also complains that the designated doctor incorrectly rated the psychological component of the injury. Carrier asserted that the designated doctor used the wrong chapter of the AMA Guides to rate this component of the injury and, at the hearing, claimant’s attorney agreed. However, this is not mentioned in the decision and order. We must reverse the hearing officer’s IR determination and remand for the hearing officer to seek clarification from the designated doctor regarding the impairment for the psychological condition. Because the designated doctor noted the lack of testing and indicated that he may be unsure regarding the permanence of the depression, and because the designated doctor is not a psychiatrist, the designated doctor may send claimant’s records to a psychiatrist for his or her consideration, request that the psychiatrist examine claimant, and ask that the psychiatrist provide his or her opinion concerning impairment as it relates only to the depression. When seeking clarification from the designated doctor, the hearing officer should also inform the designated doctor that the compensable injury does not include a right wrist injury.
Carrier next contends the hearing officer erred in determining that claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on October 19, 1999. At the hearing, the parties did not stipulate to the date of MMI and agreed that evidence would be presented on the issue of MMI. Claimant testified that, after her __________, injury, she worked one day, and then she did not work again until October 4, 1998. Disability began to accrue on October 3, 1997, and claimant’s statutory MMI date was 104 weeks after that date. The hearing officer apparently determined that claimant reached MMI on October 19, 1999, because that was the MMI date certified by the designated doctor. Because we are remanding this case, we also reverse the hearing officer’s MMI determination and remand that issue to the hearing officer to determine the MMI date in this case.
We affirm the hearing officer’s determination that the compensable injury includes the cervical and thoracic spine and bilateral shoulders. We reverse the determination that claimant’s injury includes a right wrist injury and render a determination that it does not include a right wrist injury. We reverse the determination that claimant reached MMI on October 19, 1999, with a 39% IR and we remand the MMI and IR issues to the hearing officer for reconsideration.
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 Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s Division of Hearings, pursuant to Section 410.202. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92642, decided January 20, 1993.
Judy L. Stephens
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
CONCUR IN RESULT:
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge