This appeal after remand 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 the record closing on July 20, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the scope of the ___________, compensable injury of the appellant (claimant) did not include cervical brachial plexus or impingement of the left shoulder. The hearing officer also determined that claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on August 31, 1994, with an impairment rating (IR) of six percent, as certified by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission)-selected designated doctor, Dr. S. Claimant appealed these determinations on sufficiency grounds. Respondent (carrier) responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
The parties stipulated that the issue of whether the injury extended to include depression and anxiety was improvidently certified and is not an issue. The Appeals Panel affirmed the hearing officer’s determination that the compensable injury did not include cervical brachial plexus or impingement of the left shoulder. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 011881, decided September 26, 2001. The Appeals Panel reversed the hearing officer’s determination regarding MMI and IR and remanded the case to the hearing officer for reconsideration. The Appeals Panel decision directed that the hearing officer determine whether the designated doctor amended his report in a reasonable period of time and for a proper purpose, and that the hearing officer consider the elapsed time between the active consideration of surgery and the designated doctor’s amended report, and what circumstances existed that might have had a bearing on claimant’s actions to obtain an amended report after the surgery. The hearing officer did not conduct a hearing after remand. The hearing officer issued a new decision after remand and determined that the amendment to the designated doctor’s report was not made within a reasonable time and that the great weight of the other medical evidence is not contrary to the designated doctor’s 1995 report which certified that claimant reached MMI on August 31, 1994, with an IR of six percent. Claimant again appealed on the same grounds and carrier again responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision on remand.
DECISION
We affirm.
We have reviewed the complained-of determinations regarding MMI, IR, and amendment of the designated doctor’s report. The hearing officer reviewed the record and decided what facts were established. The hearing officer reviewed the evidence and determined that delays in obtaining an amendment of the designated doctor’s report were attributable to claimant. The hearing officer determined that the amendment to the designated doctor’s report was not made within a reasonable time and that the great weight of the other medical evidence is not contrary to the designated doctor’s report which certified an MMI date of August 31, 1994, with an IR of six percent. 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).
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
PARKER W. RUSH
1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 4200
DALLAS, TEXAS 75202-2812.
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge