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 July 16, 2025, with the record closing on August 29, 2025, in (city), Texas, with (administrative law judge) presiding as the administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ resolved the disputed issues by deciding that: (1) the compensable injury of (date of injury), extends to left knee complex tear of lateral meniscus, right knee unilateral post-traumatic osteoarthritis, and right leg injury of peroneal nerve at lower leg level; (2) the respondent (claimant) reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on March 27, 2024; and (3) the claimant’s impairment rating (IR) is eight percent. The appellant (self-insured) appeals the ALJ’s determinations of extent of injury, MMI and IR. The appeal file does not contain a response from the claimant to the self-insured’s appeal.
DECISION
Affirmed as reformed.
The parties stipulated, in part, that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on (date of injury), in the form of at least a right knee sprain and a right knee strain, and that the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Division) appointed (Dr. E) as designated doctor for the issues of extent of injury, MMI, and IR. The claimant was injured in the course and scope of his employment while chasing a suspect.
EXTENT OF INJURY
The Benefit Review Conference (BRC) Report stated the disputed extent-of- injury issue as follows: Does the compensable injury of (date of injury), extend to left knee complex tear of lateral meniscus, right knee unilateral post-traumatic osteoarthritis, and right leg injury of peroneal nerve at lower leg level? The ALJ in his decision listed the disputed issue as stated in the BRC Report. However, at the CCH the parties agreed to amend the issue to “right knee complex tear of lateral meniscus” stating that the claimant’s injury was to his right knee not his left knee. The parties recognized that the BRC Report erroneously stated the meniscus injury as the left knee rather than the right knee. There was no evidence or argument presented at the CCH to reflect the claimant sustained a complex tear of the lateral meniscus of his left knee. We reform the disputed extent-of-injury issue as stated in the decision as follows to conform to the agreement of the parties: Does the compensable injury of (date of injury), extend to right knee complex tear of lateral meniscus, right knee unilateral post-traumatic osteoarthritis, and right leg injury of peroneal nerve at lower leg level?
In his discussion of the evidence the ALJ stated, in part, that he “finds the compensable injury includes right knee complex tear of the lateral meniscus,…” However, in Finding of Fact No. 3 the ALJ found that the compensable injury of (date of injury), was a producing cause of left knee complex tear of lateral meniscus, right knee unilateral post-traumatic osteoarthritis, and right leg injury of peroneal nerve at lower leg level. We reform Finding of Fact No. 3 to conform to the evidence as follows: the compensable injury of (date of injury), was a producing cause of right knee complex tear of lateral meniscus, right knee unilateral post-traumatic osteoarthritis, and right leg injury of peroneal nerve at lower leg level. In Conclusion of Law No. 3, the ALJ determined that the compensable injury of (date of injury), extends to left knee complex tear of lateral meniscus, right knee unilateral post-traumatic osteoarthritis, and right leg injury of peroneal nerve at lower leg level. We reform Conclusion of Law No. 3 to conform to the evidence as follows: the compensable injury of (date of injury), extends to right knee complex tear of lateral meniscus, right knee unilateral post-traumatic osteoarthritis, and right leg injury of personal nerve at lower leg level.
MMI/IR
The ALJ was persuaded that the certification of June 12, 2024, from Dr. E was not contrary to the preponderance of the other medical evidence. The ALJ determined that the claimant reached MMI on March 27, 2024, according to the certification from Dr. E. However, in his discussion of the evidence, finding of fact, and conclusion of law the ALJ mistakenly references the date of MMI as April 27, 2024, rather than March 27, 2024, the date actually certified by Dr. E. There is no certification in evidence that the claimant reached MMI on April 27, 2024. The ALJ found in Finding of Fact No. 4 that “[o]n June 12, 2024, Dr. E certified that the claimant reached [MMI] on April 27, 2024, with an [IR] of [eight percent]. This certification was not contrary to the preponderance of the other medical evidence.” We reform Finding of Fact No. 4 to read as follows to conform to the evidence: On June 12, 2024, Dr. E certified that the claimant reached MMI on March 27, 2024 with an IR of eight percent. This certification was not contrary to the preponderance of the other medical evidence. In Conclusion of Law No. 4, the ALJ determined that the date of MMI is April 27, 2024. We reform Conclusion of Law No. 4 as follows to conform to the evidence: The date of MMI is March 27, 2024.
The ALJ’s determination that the claimant’s IR is eight percent is supported by sufficient evidence and is affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a self -insured governmental entity through Texas Association of Risk Management Pool) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
(NAME)
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Margaret L. Turner
Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Cristina Beceiro
Appeals Judge
Carisa Space-Beam
Appeals Judge