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 October 3, 2001. With respect to the single issue before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) is not entitled to reimbursement of travel expenses for medical treatment at the direction of his treating doctor. In his appeal, the claimant essentially argues that the hearing officer’s determination is against the great weight of the evidence. In its response to the claimant’s appeal, the respondent (self-insured) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant is not entitled to reimbursement of travel expenses for medical treatment at the direction of his treating doctor. The hearing officer determined that the claimant did not sustain his burden of proving that he is entitled to reimbursement under Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 134.6(b) (Rule 134.6(b)) because he did not sustain his burden of proving to the hearing officer’s satisfaction that “medical treatment for the compensable injury is not reasonably available within 20 miles of the injured employee’s residence.” Our review of the record does not reveal that the hearing officer’s determination in that regard is so contrary to the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to disturb the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant is not entitled to reimbursement for travel expenses under Rule 134.6(b).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the self-insured is (EMPLOYER) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge