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 17, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the first certification of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating certified by Dr. F became final pursuant to the 90-day rule (Tex. W.C. Comm’n 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.5(e) (Rule 130.5(e)))[1]. Appellant (claimant) appealed this determination and respondent (carrier) responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
DECISION
We affirm.
We have reviewed the complained-of determination and conclude that the issue involved a fact question for the hearing officer. The hearing officer reviewed the record and decided what facts were established. The hearing officer could determine from the record that Dr. F considered all of claimant’s injury, that he performed range of motion testing, and that he appropriately considered the records and the results of his examination in making the first certification. We perceive no reversible error in the application of Rule 130.5(e). We conclude that the hearing officer’s determination is 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.
According to information provided by carrier, the true corporate name of the insurance carrier is ASSOCIATION CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
HAROLD FISCHER
3420 EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 200
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78766.
Judy L. S. Barnes
CONCUR:
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
- Claimant did not appeal the determination regarding the calculation of the 90 day period. ↑