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 9, 2001. With respect to the sole issue before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) had an impairment rating (IR) of 10% as certified by the designated doctor selected by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission). In her appeal, the claimant asserts error in the hearing officer’s having given presumptive weight to the designated doctor’s IR and requests that the Appeals Panel render a new decision that the claimant’s IR is the 100% assigned by her treating doctor. The respondent (self-insured) responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant, a licensed vocational nurse at one of the employer’s hospitals, sustained a compensable injury on__________, in the form of a latex allergy. The claimant’s treating doctor first assigned a 0% IR, then a year later changed the claimant’s IR to 100%, without including a narrative report explaining the rating. When the self-insured challenged the 100% IR, the Commission appointed a designated doctor to determine that claimant’s IR. The designated doctor assigned a 10% IR to the claimant after an evaluation performed on July 26, 2000. The parties stipulated that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement on July 26, 2000, in accordance with the designated doctor’s certification.
Sections 408.122(c) and 408.125(e) of the 1989 Act provide that a report of a Commission-appointed designated doctor shall have presumptive weight on the issues of MMI and IR, and the Commission shall base its determination on such report, unless the great weight of other medical evidence is to the contrary. The Appeals Panel has stated that the great weight of the other medical evidence requires more than a mere balancing or preponderance of the evidence; that no other doctor’s report, including the treating doctor’s report, is accorded the special presumptive status; that the designated doctor’s report should not be rejected absent a substantial basis for doing so; and that medical evidence, not lay testimony, is required to overcome the designated doctor’s report. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 960817, decided June 6, 1996; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 94835, decided August 12, 1994.
The hearing officer determined that the great weight of the other medical evidence is not contrary to the designated doctor’s report. As noted above, the treating doctor did not include a narrative explaining the basis of his 100% IR; thus, at best, it represents a difference in medical opinion as to the appropriate rating to assign for the claimant’s compensable latex allergy. The treating doctor’s opinion on that question simply does not rise to the level of the great weight of the other evidence contrary to the designated doctor’s report and his 10% IR. As such, the hearing officer did not err in giving presumptive weight to the designated doctor’s report in accordance with Sections 408.122(c) and 408.125(e) and in determining that the claimant’s IR is 10%.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is EMPLOYER and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge