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 begun on May 24, continued on August 24, and concluded on October 9, 2001, with the record closing on October 9, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) suffered an injury in the course and scope of his employment on ___________, in the form of a severe shoulder sprain, and that he had disability starting on February 27, 2001, and ending on September 24, 2001. The claimant appeals the hearing officer’s conclusion as to the exact nature of the claimant’s medical diagnosis as going beyond the issue of whether the claimant sustained an injury in the course and scope of his employment. The claimant also appeals the ending date of disability, as erroneous. The respondent (carrier) replies, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed, as reformed.
There was conflicting evidence presented at the CCH on the disputed issue of disability. The hearing officer’s determination that the claimant’s disability did not extend past September 24, 2001, 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).
Neither party appeals the determination that the claimant suffered a compensable injury on ___________. The claimant, however, argues that the hearing officer erroneously found that the claimant’s compensable injury was limited to a severe shoulder sprain. We note that the issues reported out of the benefit review conference were injury and disability. There was no issue on extent of injury. We have encouraged hearing officers to indicate the nature of the injury when determining whether an injury existed. However, we have also stated that it is not appropriate for a hearing officer to make a final determination on the issue of extent of injury when the issue of extent of injury is not before the hearing officer. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 001239, decided July 13, 2000, and Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 002898, decided January 29, 2001. As we have done in earlier cases, we consider all findings by the hearing officer concerning the extent of the claimant’s injury to be beyond the scope of the issue before him, and we consider them surplusage. We reform the hearing officer’s decision to reflect that the claimant suffered a compensable injury on ___________, to his shoulder, but strike the language in the decision limiting the claimant’s injury to a severe sprain.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed, as reformed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
GEORGE MICHAEL JONES
9330 LBJ FREEWAY, SUITE 1200
DALLAS, TEXAS 75243.
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge