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 April 2, 2002. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the appellant’s (claimant) impairment rating (IR) is 10% as certified by the designated doctor chosen by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission). The claimant appealed and the respondent (carrier) responded.
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury to her hands and elbows on ____________, and that she reached maximum medical improvement on June 20, 2001. The disputed issue is the claimant’s IR. For a claim for workers’ compensation benefits based on a compensable injury that occurs before June 17, 2001, Section 408.125(e) provides that if the designated doctor is chosen by the Commission, the report of the designated doctor shall have presumptive weight, and the Commission shall base the IR on that report unless the great weight of the other medical evidence is to the contrary, and that, if the great weight of the medical evidence contradicts the IR contained in the report of the designated doctor chosen by the Commission, the Commission shall adopt the IR of one of the other doctors.
The treating doctor assigned the claimant a 21% IR. The designated doctor assigned the claimant a 10% IR. The claimant contends that the designated doctor did not examine her. The hearing officer found that the designated doctor did examine the claimant and that a properly trained and qualified assistant took measurements for him. The results of the examination are in the designated doctor’s report. The hearing officer also found that the great weight of the other medical evidence is not contrary to the determination of the designated doctor, and concluded that the claimant’s IR is 10% as certified by the designated doctor. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the finder of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts in the evidence and determines what facts have been established. We conclude that the hearing officer’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence and that it is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (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
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS, SUITE 750, COMMODORE 1
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge