This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on February 6, 2019, in (city), Texas, with (administrative law judge) presiding as the administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ resolved the disputed issue by deciding that: the compensable injury sustained on (date of injury), does not extend to an L4-5 disc protrusion with left L5 nerve root impingement, moderate disc height loss at L2-3, L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 and 4 to 5 mm central disc protrusion at L5-S1. The appellant (claimant) appealed, disputing the ALJ’s determination of extent of injury. The respondent (carrier) responded to the claimant’s request for review, urging affirmance of the disputed issue.
DECISION
Affirmed in part as reformed and reversed and remanded in part.
The parties stipulated, in part, that on (date of injury), the claimant sustained a compensable injury at least in the form of a lumbar strain and that the (date of injury), compensable injury does not extend to moderate disc height loss at L2-3, L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 and 4 to 5 mm central disc protrusion at L5-S1. The claimant testified that he was injured when he caught a machine part weighing between 70 and 90 pounds that had come loose when he was changing it out.
EXTENT OF INJURY
As previously noted, the parties stipulated that the compensable injury of (date of injury), does not extend to moderate disc height loss at L2-3, L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 and 4 to 5 mm central disc protrusion at L5-S1. That stipulation was not appealed. Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the ALJ’s determination that the compensable injury of (date of injury), does not extend to moderate disc height loss at L2-3, L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 and 4 to 5 mm central disc protrusion at L5-S1.
We note that in Finding of Fact No. 1.D. the ALJ inadvertently omitted the word “least” from the stipulation of the parties. We reform Finding of Fact No. 1.D. to read as follows: On (date of injury), the claimant sustained a compensable injury in the form of at least a lumbar strain.
In the discussion of the evidence, the ALJ described the claimant’s mechanism of injury of (date of injury), as a motor vehicle accident (MVA) while in the course and scope of his employment. The ALJ further stated in her discussion that the parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury in the form of at least multiple pelvic fractures, lumbar contusion, and left hip contusion. A review of the record reflects that the claimant’s mechanism of injury did not involve an MVA and the parties stipulated that on (date of injury), the claimant sustained a compensable injury in the form of at least a lumbar strain. No stipulation was made regarding multiple pelvic fractures, lumbar contusion, or left hip contusion nor were these conditions at issue in the CCH. Additionally, the ALJ stated that the designated doctor determined that the disputed conditions were caused by the (date of injury), injury event but did not persuasively show how the disputed conditions were caused by the (date of injury), injury event. The ALJ mistakenly identified the “injury event” in her discussion as an MVA. We view the ALJ’s misstatement of the evidence as a material misstatement of the facts. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the ALJ’s determination that the compensable injury of (date of injury), does not extend to an L4-5 disc protrusion with left L5 nerve root impingement and remand that portion of the extent-of-injury issue to the ALJ for further action consistent with this decision.
SUMMARY
We reform Finding of Fact No. 1.D. to read as follows: On (date of injury), the claimant sustained a compensable injury in the form of at least a lumbar strain.
We affirm that portion of the ALJ’s determination that the (date of injury), compensable injury does not extend to moderate disc height loss at L2-3, L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 and 4 to 5 mm central disc protrusion at L5-S1.
We reverse that portion of the ALJ’s determination that the (date of injury), compensable injury does not extend to an L4-5 disc protrusion with left L5 nerve root impingement, and remand that portion of the ALJ’s extent-of-injury determination to the ALJ for further action consistent with this decision.
REMAND INSTRUCTIONS
On remand the ALJ is to correct her misstatement of the evidence regarding the mechanism of injury and the parties’ stipulation regarding the conditions of multiple pelvic fractures, lumbar contusion, and left hip contusion. The ALJ is then to make a determination of whether the (date of injury), compensable injury extends to an L4-5 disc protrusion with left L5 nerve root impingement consistent with this decision.
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 ALJ, 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 Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation 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. See Appeals Panel Decision 060721, decided June 12, 2006.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEMS
1999 BRYAN STREET, SUITE 900
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Margaret L. Turner – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Cristina Beceiro – Appeals Judge
Carisa Space-Beam – Appeals Judge