On March 7, 2000, a contested case hearing (CCH) was held. The CCH was held under the provisions of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding not to approve appellant’s (claimant) request for spinal surgery. Claimant appeals the hearing officer’s decision. Respondent (carrier) requests that the hearing officer’s decision be affirmed. Claimant’s appeal is accepted as an appeal of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the hearing officer’s decision.
DECISION
Affirmed.
Section 408.026 and Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 133.206 set forth the spinal surgery second opinion requirements. The parties stipulated that claimant sustained a compensable spinal injury on __________, and that Dr. D recommended that claimant have spinal surgery. The hearing officer sets out the evidence in her decision. Dr. C, carrier’s second opinion doctor on spinal surgery, did not concur in the need for surgery. Dr. L, claimant’s second opinion doctor on spinal surgery, did not concur in the need for surgery. The hearing officer found that the great weight of the medical evidence is not contrary to the recommendation against spinal surgery by Drs. C and L and concluded that claimant’s request for spinal surgery should not be approved. The hearing officer is the judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. We conclude that the hearing officer’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence and that it is not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Judy L. Stephens – Appeals Judge