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 2, 2001. The hearing officer determined that (1) the __________, compensable injury of respondent (claimant) is not a producing cause of disability and the need for treatment after July 25, 2000; (2) claimant sustained a new injury on __________, while working for (employer), and employer had workers’ compensation insurance at that time through appellant American Home Assurance Company (carrier 2); (3) claimant had disability from the __________, injury from July 25, 2000, through the date of the hearing; (4) the __________, injury did not cause disability after July 25, 2000; and (5) claimant timely reported the __________, injury the day after it occurred. Carrier 2 appealed the determinations regarding whether there was a new injury, producing cause of the disability, and disability. Carrier 2 also contends that the hearing officer erred in refusing to leave the record open so that carrier 2 could obtain the medical records of Dr. C, who it contends may have treated or discussed claimant’s __________ injury. The determination regarding timely notice was not appealed. Respondent Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (carrier 1), who provided workers’ compensation insurance at the time of the __________, injury, responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order. There is no response in the appeal file from the claimant.
DECISION
We affirm.
We have reviewed the complained-of determinations regarding new injury and producing cause of the disability and conclude that the issues involved fact questions for the hearing officer. The hearing officer reviewed the record and decided what facts were established. The records of Dr. E and Dr. B support the hearing officer’s determinations. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). Regarding the disability determination, carrier 2 apparently contends claimant did not have disability at all because there was no new injury, and does not challenge the specific dates found by the hearing officer. Because we have affirmed the above determinations, we also affirm the hearing officer’s disability determination.
Carrier 2 contends that the hearing officer abused his discretion in refusing to hold the record open while it obtained the records of Dr. C. Carrier 2 asserts that it did not find out that claimant had treated with Dr. C until the hearing because claimant failed to disclose this. The hearing officer heard claimant’s testimony and carrier 2’s arguments regarding Dr. C’s treatment of claimant’s headaches and apparently determined that Dr. C’s records were not relevant. Whether to leave the record open involved the hearing officer’s discretion. We note that carrier 2 expressly stated that it did not want a continuance. We conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in this case.
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
According to information provided by carrier 1, the true corporate name of insurance carrier 1 is LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE 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.
According to information provided by carrier 2, the true corporate name of insurance carrier 2 is AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS, SUITE 750
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Judy L. S. Barnes
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge