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 compensable injury of appellant (claimant) did not extend to the diagnosed gastritis, duodenitis, ulcer, pancreatitis, lumbar facet syndrome, reactive depression, or headaches. The hearing officer also determined that claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on February 15, 2001, with an impairment rating (IR) of seven percent, as certified by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission-selected designated doctor. Claimant appealed these determinations on sufficiency grounds. Respondent (carrier) responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
DECISION
We affirm.
Carrier contends that claimant’s request for review was not timely filed. However, claimant sent his appeal by facsimile transmission on November 19, 2001, and it was timely filed.
Claimant contends that he was not informed regarding when the hearing would take place.[1] This issue was not raised at the hearing and will not be addressed for the first time on appeal. We have reviewed the complained-of determination regarding extent of injury and conclude that the issue involved fact questions for the hearing officer. The hearing officer reviewed the record and decided what facts were established. 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).
Regarding the IR and MMI determinations, the hearing officer did not err in according presumptive weight to the designated doctor’s report. The hearing officer could find that the designated doctor rated all of the compensable injury. The Appeals Panel has held that the need for further medical treatment does not necessarily preclude the attainment of MMI. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 960728, decided May 29, 1996 (Unpublished). Claimant contended that there was improper unilateral contact with the designated doctor; however, we note that this was raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore, we will not address this contention. We do note that Section 408.125 discusses contact with and undue influence on the designated doctor and the applicable administrative penalties in this regard.
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
According to information provided by carrier, the true corporate name of the insurance carrier is PHICO INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C. T. CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
- Claimant did attend the hearing. ↑