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 April 30, 2003. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the appellant’s (claimant) impairment rating (IR) is 11% as certified by the second designated doctor chosen by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission). The claimant appeals, contending that the 15% IR assigned by the treating doctor is the most justified and fair IR. No response was received from the respondent (carrier).
DECISION
Affirmed.
The parties stipulated that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement on July 8, 2002, for his compensable injury of ______________. The disputed issue was the claimant’s IR. Section 408.125(c) provides that for a claim for workers’ compensation benefits based on a compensable injury that occurs on or after June 17, 2001, the report of the designated doctor shall have presumptive weight, and the Commission shall base the IR on that report unless the great weight of the other medical evidence is to the contrary, and that if the great weight of the medical evidence contradicts the IR contained in the report of the designated doctor chosen by the Commission, the Commission shall adopt the IR of one of the other doctors. Conflicting evidence was presented on the IR issue. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the finder of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts in the evidence and determines what facts have been established. The hearing officer determined that the great weight of the medical evidence is not contrary to the 11% IR assigned by the second designated doctor and that his IR determination is entitled to presumptive weight. The hearing officer concluded that the claimant’s IR is 11%. We conclude that the hearing officer’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence and that it is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Robert W. Potts
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Veronica L. Ruberto – Appeals Judge