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 August 31, 2000. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) sustained a compensable injury to her left shoulder and neck on __________; and that she had disability as a result of her compensable injury from April 22, 2000, through the date of the hearing. In her appeal, the claimant asserts that the hearing officer erred in characterizing the nature and extent of the compensable injury because an extent-of-injury issue was not before him. In its response to the claimant’s appeal, the respondent (carrier) agrees that an issue as to the nature and extent of the compensable injury was not before the hearing officer and, therefore, it should not have been addressed in the decision and order.
DECISION
Affirmed, as modified.
The issue before the hearing officer was whether the claimant sustained a compensable injury on __________. There was no extent-of-injury issue before the hearing officer. The parties have properly noted that the hearing officer should not have addressed an issue that was not before him. Accordingly, Finding of Fact No. 2, Conclusion of Law No. 3, and the first sentence of the hearing officer’s Decision section are modified to remove any reference to the body parts injured, as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
2.Claimant sustained an injury in the course and scope of her employment on __________.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
2.Claimant sustained a compensable injury on __________.
DECISION
Claimant sustained a compensable injury on __________.
As so modified, the hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
Judy L. Stephens – Appeals Judge