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 May 31, 2001. With regard to the issue before her, the hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant herein) impairment rating (IR) is 13% based upon the report of the designated doctor selected by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission). The claimant appeals, arguing that the hearing officer should have assessed his IR either on the 32% IR certification of his surgeon or the 22% certification of his treating doctor. The carrier responds that the hearing officer properly gave presumptive weight to the IR certification of the designated doctor.
DECISION
Finding sufficient evidence to support the decision of the hearing officer and no reversible error in the record, we affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The parties stipulated that on _____________, the claimant sustained a compensable injury to his right shoulder and low back; that Dr. D was the Commission-selected designated doctor; and that the claimant’s date of maximum medical improvement was April 24, 2000. There are three certifications of IR in the record. On a Report of Medical Evaluation (TWCC-69) dated April 24, 2000, Dr. A, the claimant’s treating doctor, certified that the claimant’s IR was 22%. On a TWCC-69 dated June 2, 2000, Dr. D certified a 13% IR. On a TWCC-69 dated June 9, 2000, Dr. P, the surgeon who operated on the claimant, certified that the claimant’s IR was 32%. The record also includes Dr. D’s response to letters of clarification in which he responds to criticisms of his certification by Drs. A and P.
The hearing officer did not err in giving presumptive weight to the designated doctor’s certification of IR under Section 408.125(e). The difference between the designated doctor’s certification and those of Dr. P and Dr. A is attributable to differences in medical opinion. The other doctors’ opinions on this matter simply do not rise to the level of the great weight of medical evidence contrary to the designated doctor’s report. Accordingly, the hearing officer did not err in giving presumptive weight to the designated doctor’s report under Section 408.125(e) and in determining that the claimant’s IR was 13% as certified by the designated doctor selected by the Commission.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge