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 31, 2000. The hearing officer determined that: (1) the __________, compensable injury of the appellant (claimant) is not a producing cause of his low back injury; (2) claimant did not have disability after July 22, 1998; (3) claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on July 22, 1998, with a six percent impairment rating (IR), as certified by the designated doctor, Dr. C; and (4) respondent (carrier) is not entitled to contribution regarding a __________, back injury, and this issue is moot since the injury did not include the back. Claimant appealed the determinations regarding producing cause, IR, MMI, and disability, on sufficiency grounds. He also asserted that Dr. M, and not Dr. C, was the designated doctor selected by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission). Carrier responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
DECISION
We affirm.
Claimant contends that his compensable right lower extremity injury includes an injury to his back. He asserts that, even though some early medical records indicate that he complained only of a leg or hip injury, he did complain of, and sustain, a back injury. He asserts that, for this reason, his IR should be 16%, to include impairment for his back. Apparently, it is claimant’s contention that he is not yet at MMI. Claimant also contends that he had disability after July 22, 1998, and that he was unable to work, although he had attempted to go back to work at one point.
We have reviewed the complained-of determinations and conclude that the issues involved fact questions for the hearing officer. The hearing officer reviewed the record and decided what facts were established. She reviewed the evidence and determined that the compensable injury did not include a back injury. Regarding the complaints about the designated doctor’s examination, we note that this was for the hearing officer to consider in making her determinations. The facts of this case are similar to those in Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 001699, decided August 30, 2000. In that case, the IR and MMI determinations were dependent on the outcome of the issue regarding the extent of the injury and we affirm the case for the same reasons as those stated in Appeal No. 001699. We also affirm the disability determination. The hearing officer stated that she was not persuaded by the evidence regarding continuing disability after July 22, 1998. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations are 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).
Claimant attached certain documents and records to his brief. We conclude that they do not meet the standards for consideration for the first time on appeal. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 000929, decided June 15, 2000. We also note that claimant asserts that Dr. M is the Commission-selected designated doctor rather than Dr. C. Commission records indicate that Dr. M performed a functional capacity evaluation and discussed other studies. Dr. M’s Report of Medical Evaluation (TWCC-69) states that he is a “designated doctor,” but claimant did not assert this at the hearing. At the hearing, the parties apparently assumed that Dr. C was the Commission-selected designated doctor. We perceive no error in the determination that Dr. C is the Commission-selected designated doctor.
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
Judy L. Stephens
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge