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 April 25, 2001, with the record closing on June 22, 2001. The decision and order issued by the hearing officer was remanded for exchange of registered agent information, and a new decision issued. The appellant (claimant) has appealed the hearing officer’s decision that the impairment rating (IR) issue was not ripe and that a second designated doctor should be appointed. The respondent (carrier) responds that the hearing officer did not abuse her discretion.
DECISION
Affirmed.
Although a second designated doctor should not be appointed except in rare circumstances, we have reviewed the record and cannot agree that the hearing officer erred by appointing a second designated doctor, which meant that she did not give presumptive weight to the amended report or the first report of the designated doctor in this case. The requested clarification of the amended report was provided by a chiropractic assistant, in the form of merely forwarding a purported range of motion (ROM) schedule sheet. No new examination occurred before this, notwithstanding the claimant’s assertion in his appeal that he “went back” to the designated doctor.
When the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission writes the designated doctor it has appointed and requests clarification, a personal response from that doctor is warranted, especially when an amended report has substantially increased an original IR and no new examination has occurred. While it is possible to read the designated doctor’s first report and see that he noted mild restrictions in ROM for the cervical area and from this surmise that some cervical ROM examination had been conducted, it was not incumbent upon the hearing officer to guess where the provided figures came from. Under these circumstances, she could conclude that the designated doctor had failed to cooperate and seek to appoint another.
We accordingly affirm the hearing officer’s decision.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C.T. CORPORATION SYSTEMS
350 N. ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge