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 May 26, 2004. The hearing officer determined that the compensable injury of appellant (claimant herein) extends to her cervical spine and left knee, but not to her right wrist. The hearing officer also determined that: (1) claimant had disability from May 4, 2001, through April 23, 2002; (2) Dr. S was properly selected as designated doctor; and (3) claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on April 23, 2002, with a 14% impairment rating (IR). Claimant appealed the determinations regarding extent of injury to the right wrist, the selection of the designated doctor, and disability. Respondent self-insured (carrier herein) responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order. The determinations that the compensable injury extends to the left knee and cervical spine, and that claimant had disability from May 4, 2001, through April 23, 2002, were not appealed and have become final. Section 410.169.
DECISION
We affirm.
Claimant contends that Dr. S, the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission-selected designated doctor, was improperly selected because he is a family doctor. Claimant asserted that it is “highly unlikely” that the designated doctor is trained and experienced in performing cervical epidural steroid injections or other anticipated treatment. The designated doctor and the doctor who performed the above-mentioned injections are both medical doctors. We perceive no error in the hearing officer’s determination regarding the selection of the designated doctor. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 040633-s, decided May 7, 2004,
We have reviewed the complained-of determinations regarding extent of injury, MMI, IR, and disability, and we conclude that the issues 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 determinations are supported by the record and are 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).
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
According to information provided by carrier, the true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a self-insured governmental entity) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Judy L. S. Barnes
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge