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 November 1, 2001. She determined that the appellant (claimant) did not have disability as a result of the ___________, compensable injury. On appeal, the claimant contends that this determination is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Reversed and remanded.
The claimant appeals the hearing officer’s disability determination on sufficiency grounds. Specifically, the claimant contends that the hearing officer based her determination on the “completely mistaken” assumption, as reflected in the Statement of Evidence, that the claimant “had tried starting her own typing business during the time for which she is claiming disability, but she derived no income from the business.” Upon reviewing the record in this case, we find no evidence to substantiate this statement. The claimant testified that she was involved in several different internet businesses in 1999, one of which was a typing service. However, the record does not reflect that she was involved in any of these businesses during the time for which she is claiming disability.
In Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93791, decided October 18, 1993, we stated that a hearing officer is not required to recite the facts in the Statement of Evidence since the 1989 Act only requires findings of fact, conclusions of law, whether benefits are due, and an award of benefits due. A statement of evidence, if made, only needs to reasonably reflect the record. While we recognize that disability is a question of fact to be determined by the hearing officer (Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93560, decided August 19, 1993), we find it necessary to remand the case because the hearing officer’s decision is based on factual information inconsistent with the facts in evidence. The decision on remand should provide the rationale for determining whether or not the claimant had disability.
Pending resolution of the remand, a final decision has not been made in this case. However, since reversal and remand necessitate the issuance of a new decision and order by the hearing officer, a party who wishes to appeal from such new decision must file a request for review not later than 15 days after the date on which such new decision is received from the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s Division of Hearings, pursuant to Section 410.202, which was amended June 17, 2001, to exclude Saturdays and Sundays and holidays listed in Section 662.003 of the Texas Government Code in the computation of the 15-day appeal and response periods.
The true corporate name of the carrier is PACIFIC EMPLOYERS’ INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
JAVIER GONZALEZ
3421 W. WILLIAM CANNON DR., SUITE 131
AUSTIN, TX 78745.
Chris Cowan
CONCUR:
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge