This appeal arises under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. arts. 8308-1.01-11.10 (Vernon Supp. 1993) (1989 Act). A contested case hearing was held in (city), Texas, on May 20, 1993, to determine the issues of whether the claimant had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and what is the claimant’s impairment rating. The appellant, hereinafter carrier, appeals hearing officer (hearing officer) determination that the claimant reached MMI on January 20, 1993, with a seven percent impairment rating, as found by the designated doctor. The respondent, hereinafter claimant, essentially contends that the hearing officer’s decision should be affirmed.
DECISION
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The claimant, a housekeeping aide for (employer), injured her back on March 14, 1992, when she twisted while squatting down to clean behind a toilet. She was seen at the hospital emergency room where she was given two shots and sent home to rest. She thereafter began treating with (Dr. M), to whom she had been sent by employer. Claimant underwent tests including an EMG and x-rays which were normal and an MRI showing a small posterolateral HNP at L5/S1. On October 21, 1992, Dr. M certified claimant had reached MMI with an impairment rating of five percent.
Because claimant disputed this impairment rating, the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) appointed (Dr. T) as designated doctor (Commission documents show Dr. T was appointed to “resolve impairment dispute”). Dr. T found the claimant had reached MMI on January 20, 1993, with a seven percent impairment. Dr. T’s narrative attached results of range of motion studies performed at the San Antonio Impairment Center, but states that such studies were invalid and that no neurological losses in the lower extremities were documented.
The carrier argued at the hearing, and contends on appeal, that because only impairment rating was disputed by the claimant, and the designated doctor was appointed only to determine impairment, claimant reached MMI on the date assigned by Dr. M, or October 21, 1992. The hearing officer made a finding, however, that Dr. M’s report was invalid because it was not signed. Carrier responds on appeal by stating that such report should not be disregarded merely because of the doctor’s failure to affix a signature, and it seeks our determination that the first MMI date should be held to be binding.
The appropriate Commission rule, Tex. W.C.Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.1(a) (Rule 130.1(a)), provides that a doctor who is required to certify whether an employee has reached MMI “shall complete and file a medical evaluation report as required by this rule.” Rule 130.1(c) requires, among other things, the doctor’s signature on such form. This panel has previously held that the absence of a doctor’s signature results in insufficient evidence upon which a certification of MMI can be found. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92027, decided March 27, 1992; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92198, decided July 3, 1992. In essence, then, there was no certification of MMI by Dr. M.
Even though our decision on this issue renders moot the carrier’s argument that no date of MMI could be considered other than that found by Dr. M, we would note that this panel has previously held that even where only impairment rating had been disputed the designated doctor can consider and certify to a claimant’s having reached MMI. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92074, decided April 8, 1992. Further, Article 8308-4.26(d) presumes that a doctor shall assign an impairment rating only after having certified that the employee has reached MMI, and the Commission rule on designated doctors (Rule 130.6) requires the designated doctor to file a medical evaluation report which includes both a determination of MMI and an impairment rating. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93124, decided April 1, 1993. The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
Lynda H. Nesenholtz – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Stark O. Sanders, Jr. – Chief Appeals Judge
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge