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 July 24, 2000. The hearing officer determined that the first certification of maximum medical improvement (MMI) and impairment rating (IR) certified by Dr. O (the first certification) did not become final. Appellant (carrier) appealed this determination, contending that there is nothing to show that the doctor disputed on behalf of respondent (claimant). The file does not contain a response from claimant.
DECISION
We affirm.
Carrier contends the hearing officer erred in determining that the first certification did not become final. Carrier asserts that: (1) claimant himself never personally disputed the first certification; (2) there is no documentation or record that claimant’s doctor had the “authority to act as an agent” for claimant in disputing the first certification; (3) Dr. O’s Report of Medical Evaluation (TWCC-69), on which claimant’s doctor stated that he “disagreed” with the first certification does not say that claimant’s doctor “disputed” it; (4) the medical records from claimant’s doctor stated only that he “disagreed” with the first certification; and (5) the first certification became final because claimant did not dispute it and there is nothing to show that claimant’s doctor disputed it or that he disputed it on claimant’s behalf.
It was undisputed that claimant received written notice of the first certification on September 22, 1999. The hearing officer determined that: (1) claimant’s doctor, Dr. K, disputed the first certification on claimant’s behalf; (2) the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission received claimant’s dispute on October 13, 1999; (3) claimant timely disputed the first certification; and (4) the first certification did not become final.
Claimant testified that his injury was to his neck and shoulder and that he disagreed with the first certification because the 13% IR did not include impairment for his neck. Claimant said he cannot read and write, so he took a packet of papers he received to his doctor. Claimant testified that: (1) on October 13, 1999, he went to see Dr. K and discussed the results of “an IR”; (2) Dr. K looked at the papers and said he disagreed about it and he would “take care of it”; and (3) claimant gave Dr. K his approval and the “right” to disagree or dispute the first certification. Claimant agreed that he did not sign any document to give Dr. K express authority to act on his behalf to dispute the first certification. On Dr. O’s TWCC-69, Dr. K checked the boxes that stated that he disagreed with the IR and MMI date. He also hand-wrote, “Note: this report received on 10/13/99.”
The arguments raised by carrier in this case were addressed by the Appeals Panel in a similar case involving similar facts and similar fact findings. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 992227, decided November 22, 1999. We conclude that the hearing officer did not err in his determinations. 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).
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
Judy L. Stephens
CONCUR:
Kathleen C. Decker
Appeals Judge
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge