This appeal on remand 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 October 7, 2003, and November 19, 2003. The hearing officer determined that respondent 2 (claimant) is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the 13th, 14th, or 15th quarters. The claimant appealed and the Appeals Panel reversed the hearing officer’s decision on all three SIBs quarters. After prevailing on appeal, respondent 1 (attorney) submitted three separate requests for attorney’s fees, corresponding to each of the three SIBs quarters. On April 13, 2004, the hearing officer issued an Order for Attorney’s Fees, approving all $1,475.00 of the requested fees corresponding to the 13th quarter. On the same date, the hearing officer considered the attorney’s applications for fees corresponding to the 14th and 15th quarters and approved .25 hours of the 10.20 requested for the 14th quarter and none of the 10.10 hours requested for the 15th quarter. The basis for the denial was that the attorney’s fees were duplicative of those requested for the 13th quarter. In Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 041052, decided June 23, 2004, we remanded the case and pointed out that the attorney had explained in her fee request that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission procedure required that three separate orders be submitted and that she had “separated out all fees accumulated during each of these disputes respectively.” Based on this information, we requested that the hearing officer reconsider the fees that she denied on the basis that they were duplicative. In the Decision on Remand, the hearing officer approved all of the requested fees corresponding to the 14th and 15th quarters ($1,440.00 and $1,420.00 respectively). The appellant (carrier) argues on appeal that the hearing officer abused her discretion by approving the fees. The claimant responded, urging affirmance of the hearing officer’s decision. The appeal file does not contain a response from the attorney.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in awarding attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,440.00 and $1,420.00. We review a hearing officer’s award of attorney’s fees under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92481, decided October 21, 1992. In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the Appeals Panel looks to see whether the hearing officer acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 951943, decided January 2, 1996, citing Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. 1986). Section 408.147 and Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 152.1(f) (Rule 152.1(f)) govern fees paid to a claimant’s attorney as a result of a SIBs dispute. In view of the record and the applicable law, we cannot conclude that the hearing officer abused her discretion in awarding the fees corresponding to the 14th and 15th SIBs quarters.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF KANSAS and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
RONALD I. HENRY
10000 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY
DALLAS, TEXAS 75230.
Chris Cowan
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Margaret L. Turner – Appeals Judge