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 6, 2010. The sole disputed issue before the hearing officer was:
Does the compensable injury of ___________, include: (1) post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD);[1] (2) lumbar spine; (3) cervical disc pathology; (4) right thumb fracture; (5) right thumb degenerative joint disease; (6) derangement;[2] (7) left knee chondromalacia of the medial and lateral compartments; (8) left knee degenerative joint disease; (9) left knee medial meniscus tear; and (10) osteoarthritis patella of the left knee?
The hearing officer determined that the compensable injury of ___________, includes: (1) right thumb fracture; (2) derangement; (3) left knee medial meniscus tear; and (4) osteoarthritis patella of the left knee. The hearing officer determined that the compensable injury of ___________, does not include: (1) PTSD; (2) lumbar spine disc protrusion at L4-5 and an extrusion at L5-S1; (3) cervical disc pathology; (4) right thumb degenerative joint disease; (5) left knee chondromalacia of the medial and lateral compartments; and (6) left knee degenerative joint disease. Further, the hearing officer made findings of fact, but failed to make a conclusion of law or decision, that the compensable injury of ___________, includes a cervical sprain and lumbar sprain. We note that in evidence are five Notice of Disputed Issue(s) and Refusal to Pay Benefits (PLN-11) dated December 10, 2007, January 3, 2008, April 9, 23, and 29, 2008, respectively, which state that respondent 1 (carrier) accepts that the compensable injury extends to a “neck strain.”
The claimant appealed the hearing officer’s determinations that were adverse to her. Additionally, the claimant states that the extent-of-injury issue with regard to the lumbar spine, is specifically phrased as only “lumbar spine” and that the hearing officer improperly “parcel[ed] out” that condition as to whether the lumbar spine injury was “a sprain strain or disc pathology.” The carrier responded, urging affirmance. The appeal file does not contain a response from respondent 2 (subclaimant).
The hearing officer’s determination that the claimant’s compensable injury of ___________, includes: right thumb fracture; derangement; left knee medial meniscus tear; and osteoarthritis patella of the left knee, and that the compensable injury does not include PTSD were not appealed and have become final pursuant to Section 410.169.
DECISION
Affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part.
That portion of the hearing officer’s determination that the compensable injury of ___________, does not include: (1) cervical disc pathology; (2) right thumb degenerative joint disease; (3) left knee chondromalacia of the medial and lateral compartments; and (4) left knee degenerative joint disease is supported by sufficient evidence and is affirmed.
In the Background Information section of the decision, the hearing officer states that the preponderance of the evidence supports the designated doctor’s opinion that the claimant’s lumbar herniations (lumbar spine disc protrusion at L4-5 and an extrusion at L5-S1) were pre-existing and not caused or aggravated by the work injury of ___________. A review of the record shows that the specific lumbar conditions were actually litigated. That portion of the hearing officer’s determination that the compensable injury of ___________, does not include a lumbar spine disc protrusion at L4-5 and an extrusion at L5-S1 is supported by sufficient evidence and is affirmed.
Further, the hearing officer states in the Background Information section of the decision, that the evidence is persuasive and not conflicting that the lumbar sprain was caused by the compensable injury of ___________. The hearing officer found that the compensable injury of ___________, includes a lumbar sprain and that finding is supported by sufficient evidence. However, we note that the hearing officer failed to make a conclusion of law or a decision, that the compensable injury of ___________, includes a lumbar sprain. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the hearing officer’s determination regarding the lumbar sprain as incomplete and we render a new decision that the compensable injury of ___________, includes a lumbar sprain.
SUMMARY
We affirm that portion of the hearing officer’s determination that the compensable injury of ___________, does not include: (1) lumbar spine disc protrusion at L4-5 and an extrusion at L5-S1; (2) cervical disc pathology; (3) right thumb degenerative joint disease; (4) left knee chondromalacia of the medial and lateral compartments; and (5) left knee degenerative joint disease.
We reverse that portion of the hearing officer’s determination regarding the lumbar sprain as incomplete and we render a new decision that the compensable injury of ___________, includes a lumbar sprain.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
RON O. WRIGHT, PRESIDENT
6210 EAST HIGHWAY 290
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78723.
Veronica L. Ruberto
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp
Appeals Judge
Margaret L. Turner
Appeals Judge