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 29, 2003. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant (claimant) reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on July 29, 2002, with a 10% impairment rating (IR) as certified by the designated doctor chosen by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission). The claimant appealed, contending that he reached MMI on February 27, 2003, with a 17% IR as certified by his treating doctor. No response was received from the respondent (carrier).
DECISION
Affirmed.
It is undisputed that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on ____________. For a claim for workers’ compensation benefits based on a compensable injury that occurs on or after June 17, 2001, Section 408.122(c) provides that the report of the designated doctor has presumptive weight, and the Commission shall base its determination of whether the employee has reached MMI on the report unless the great weight of the other medical evidence is to the contrary. Section 408.125(c) provides that 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 hearing officer found that the designated doctor’s certification that the claimant reached MMI on July 29, 2002, with a 10% IR is not contrary to the great weight of the other medical evidence, and concluded that the claimant reached MMI on July 29, 2002, with a 10% IR 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. Although there is conflicting evidence in this case, we conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations on the disputed issues of MMI and IR are supported by sufficient evidence and are 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).
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TEXAS BUILDERS INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
ROBERT C. SIDDONS
11612 RM 2244, BUILDING 1
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78738.
Robert W. Potts
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge