This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held in__________, Texas, on October 4, 2001, with ___________presiding as the hearing officer. He determined that the attorneys fees orders of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) dated July 24, 2001, approving $225.00 in attorney fees for the respondent (attorney) and July 27, 2001, approving $112.50 in attorney fees for the attorney for the claimant are for services that were performed, are within the Commission’s rules, and are presumed reasonable and correct. The appellant (claimant) has appealed, asserting that the attorney and his associates unnecessarily duplicated their efforts, on matters already resolved, for their monetary gain at the claimant’s expense. In his response, the attorney for the claimant urges that the evidence sufficiently supports the hearing officer’s findings that the disputed fees are for services that were related to income benefits issues, were actually performed, and were reasonable. Though the style of the hearing officer’s Decision and Order includes Old Republic Insurance Company (carrier), the carrier did not appear at the hearing below and has not filed a response to the appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
This case is remanded for the sole purpose of compliance with House Bill 2600 amending Sections 410.164 and 410.204, effective June 17, 2001, which require certain information concerning the true corporate name of the insurance carrier and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process. Notwithstanding that the only disputed issue at the CCH dealt with attorney’s fees, the carrier information is required in this case because the appellant is a claimant who, depending on the outcome of the request for review by the Appeals Panel, could seek judicial review.
The procedure for implementing the statutory amendment is contained in the June 19, 2001, Commission Memorandum to hearing officers entitled “Required Insurance Carrier Information.” A rehearing on remand is required to obtain this information and admit it into the hearing record.
Pending resolution of the remand, a final decision has not been made in this case. however, since reversal and remand necessitate the issuance of a new decision and order by the hearing officer, a party who wishes to appeal from such new decision must file a request for review not later than 15 days after the date on which such new decision is
Philip F. O’Neill
Gary L. Kilgore
Michael B. McShane