This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing on remand was held on November 12, 2001. The Appeals Panel, in Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 011807 decided September 6, 2001, had remanded the case for the hearing officer to determine the date of statutory maximum medical improvement (MMI) (as defined in Section 401.011(30)(B)), to determine whether spinal surgery was under “active consideration” at statutory MMI and to review reports in light of his determinations regarding the date of MMI and correct impairment rating (IR).
The parties stipulated that statutory MMI was June 26, 2000, and the hearing officer determined that spinal surgery was “under active consideration at or before the time of statutory [MMI],” that the respondent (claimant) reached MMI on June 18, 2000, with 33% IR as assessed by the designated doctor in an amended report dated March 3, 2001, and that the amended report “has not been overcome by the great weight of contrary medical evidence.”
The appellant (carrier) appeals, stating that the designated doctor’s amended report should not be adopted because he did not amend his report for a proper reason and within a reasonable time, citing Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 950861 decided July 12, 1995. The file does not contain a response from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The background facts and medical evidence are summarized in Appeal No. 011807, supra, and will not be repeated here. The claimant had a compensable low back injury on ______________; had conservative treatment; and was being considered for spinal surgery on February 14, 2000, as evidenced by a medical report of that date. As noted in Appeal No. 011807, the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission), on June 13, 2000, notified the claimant that spinal surgery had been approved and that the claimant, in fact, had spinal surgery on October 19, 2000. The designated doctor, Dr. B, a chiropractor, had originally certified MMI on March 30, 1999, with a 7% IR, commenting that the claimant’s condition “is not likely to improve” after the claimant had spinal surgery on October 19, 2000. Dr. B reexamined the claimant on March 3, 2001, and certified MMI on June 18, 2000, with a 33% IR (10% impairment from Table 49 of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, third edition, second printing, dated February 1989, published by the American Medical Association (AMA Guides) and 25% impairment for “lumbosacral range of motion and ankylosis impairment”).
As indicated, the carrier appeals on the basis that the designated doctor’s amended report should not be adopted because Dr. B did not amend it for a proper reason and within a reasonable time. The Commission has adopted Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.6(i) (Rule 130.6(i)) effective January 2, 2002, which provides in relevant part that a designated doctor’s amended report “is considered to have presumptive weight.” The preamble to that rule makes clear that it is the Commission’s intent that amendment and “clarification” are to be given presumptive weight regardless of the time it was rendered. The Appeals Panel has already addressed Rule 130.6(i) in Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 013042-s, decided January 17, 2002, where the Appeals Panel held that Rule 130.6(i) “does not permit the analysis of whether an amendment was made for a proper purpose or within a reasonable time.” Appeal No. 013042-s goes on to discuss reasoning for applying the rule on its effective date.
Accordingly, the hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is ACE INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
MARCUS MERRITT, ACE USA
6600 E. CAMPUS CIRCLE DRIVE, SUITE 200
IRVING, TEXAS 75063.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge