Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
Title:
APD 010651
Date:
April 23, 2001

APD 010651

April 23, 2001

This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A spinal surgery contested case hearing on remand was held on February 26, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the appellant (carrier) is liable for the recommended spinal surgery. The carrier appealed and the respondent (claimant) responded.

DECISION

The hearing officer’s decision on remand is affirmed.

The hearing officer did not err in determining that the carrier is liable for the recommended spinal surgery. Dr. L, the claimant’s second opinion doctor on spinal surgery, had concurred with the surgery recommended by Dr. B, but noted that the myelogram was not available for his review. Dr. L wrote that his opinion had not changed after review of the CT scan and myelogram. In accordance with Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §. 133.206(k)(4) (Rule 133.206(k)(4)), the hearing officer gave presumptive weight to the two opinions which had the same result.

The carrier has not shown reversible error in the hearing officer’s ruling excluding from evidence at the hearing on remand the designated doctor’s report of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating and the reports of a doctor that examined the claimant and reviewed medical records at the carrier’s request. Neither of those doctors were the second opinion doctors on spinal surgery. See Rule 133.206(k)(4). The remand was for the purpose of considering and developing the evidence regarding Dr. L’s opinion on spinal surgery, taking into consideration the myelogram and CT scan.

The hearing officer’s decision and order on remand are affirmed.

Robert W. Potts
Appeals Judge

CONCUR:

Thomas A. Knapp
Appeals Judge

Robert E. Lang

Appeals Panel

Manager/Judge

Top