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 on October 17, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the sole issue before him by determining that the appellant’s (claimant) first certification of maximum medical improvement (MMI) and the impairment rating (IR) assigned by Dr. S on February 29, 2000, has become final under Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.5(e) (Rule 130.5(e)). The claimant appealed, asserting that the first certification should not have become final because she did not receive a copy of the certification in March of 2000, and because the medical treatment she received from Dr. S was inadequate. The respondent (carrier) responded, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on ____________. The claimant testified that she was employed as an aid on a bus which transported disabled children; that on ____________, she sustained a low back injury while strapping a child’s wheelchair down; that she was seen at a clinic and received approximately one month of physical therapy immediately after the accident; that she was referred to Dr. S; and that she eventually started treating with Dr. T. Our review of the record additionally shows that Dr. S placed the claimant at MMI and issued an IR on February 29, 2000; that Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) records show that notice of Dr. S’s certification was mailed to the claimant on March 13, 2000; and that the claimant failed to dispute the certification within 90 days.
The claimant does not dispute a finding that she did not dispute Dr. S’s certification to the Commission until after February 2001. Although not argued very strenuously at the CCH, the claimant states on appeal that she did not receive a copy of Dr. S’s first certification of MMI and IR from the Commission in March of 2000. By way of explanation, the claimant testified that her neighbors sometimes take her mail. Rule 102.5(d) provides that for purposes of determining the date of receipt for written communications sent by the Commission which requires the recipient to perform an action by a specific date after receipt, unless the great weight of the evidence indicates otherwise, the Commission shall deem the received date to be five days after the date mailed. The claimant does not contend that the notice was mailed to an incorrect address; rather, she merely contends that she did not receive it. Nothing in our review of the record indicates that the hearing officer erred in deeming the claimant to have received the first certification of MMI and IR on March 18, 2000, pursuant to Rule 102.5(d), and that she did not timely contest the certification within 90 days.
The claimant’s primary argument on appeal is that she received inadequate care from Dr. S, and that she continues to improve under the care of Dr. T. The claimant points to a carrier-selected peer review report from Dr. O to support her position. Rule 130.5(e) provides that the first certification of MMI and IR becomes final if a party fails to dispute it within 90 days after written notification is sent by the Commission unless, based on compelling medical evidence, the certification is invalid because of a significant error on the part of the certifying doctor in applying the appropriate Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, third edition, second printing, dated February 1989, published by the American Medical Association and/or calculating the IR; there has been a clear misdiagnosis or a previously undiagnosed medical condition; or there has been prior improper or inadequate treatment of the injury which would render the certification of MMI and IR invalid. The only evidence the claimant presented as to the inappropriateness or inadequacy of the care she received from Dr. S was her own testimony. Nothing in our review of the record indicates that any doctor has alleged that the treatment the claimant received from Dr. S was inappropriate or inadequate. Dr. T may choose to treat the claimant with different modalities, but there is no evidence to show that this is anything more than a difference of medical options. Our review of the record in this matter indicates that the hearing officer correctly determined that the first certification of MMI and IR by Dr. S has become final. The challenged factual finding is not against the great weight of the evidence. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951). Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge