Pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 8308-1.01 et seq. (Vernon Supp. 1993) (1989 Act), a contested case hearing was held in (city), Texas, on May 13, 1993, (hearing officer) presiding as hearing officer. He concluded that the correct impairment rating for the respondent, claimant herein, was 14%; that he reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on December 4, 1992; and that the appellant, carrier herein, failed to dispute the certification of MMI within 90 days. The claimant does not raise the issue of timeliness of the appeal, but urges affirmance of the hearing officer’s decision. We note that this appeal is made by Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA) on behalf of the impaired carrier, Texas Citrus and Vegetable Insurance Exchange, which is presently in receivership.
DECISION
Finding that the request for review was not timely filed and the jurisdiction of the Appeals Panel has not been properly invoked, the decision of the hearing officer has become final pursuant to the provision of Articles 8308-6.34(h) and 8308-6.41(a) and Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 143.3(a)(3) (Rule 143.3(a)(3)).
Article 8308-6.41(a) provides that a party desiring to appeal the decision of the hearing officer must file the appeal with the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) and serve it on the opposing party no later than 15 days after receiving the decision. The hearing officer signed the decision on May 21, 1993. Commission records disclose that it was mailed to the parties on June 9, 1993. Pursuant to Rule 102.5(h), receipt is presumed have been on June 14, 1993, five days after mailing. Applying the five day rule to the date of mailing and adding the 15 days for filing an appeal, we conclude that the last day to invoke the jurisdiction of the Appeals Panel was June 29, 1993.
In the request for review, counsel for the carrier, ON, of the (SC&W) contends that “TPCIGA’s attorney contact for all claims before the TWCC, IJ . . . did not receive notice of the decision of the CCH officer until Monday, June 28, 1993 and as such the appeal is timely.” The appeal is dated July 2, 1993, and was hand delivered to the Commission on that date.
The suggestion that the time for filing a request for review does not begin to run until the carrier’s attorney “receives” notice of the decision has previously been rejected by the Appeals Panel. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93357 decided June 21, 1993. Computation of the time for filing an appeal begins to run from the time of receipt of the decision by a party, in this case the carrier, not from receipt of the decision by the attorney for the party. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92219, decided July 15, 1992. The decision was distrubuted to the carrier’s Austin representative. Carrier cites no delay which extends the statutorily imposed deadlines for filing an appeal. Art. 8308-6.41(a).
The request for review having been determined to be untimely, the jurisdiction of the Appeals Panel has not been properly invoked. Accordingly, the decision of the hearing officer has become final.
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Stark O. Sanders, Jr. – Chief Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge