On June 3, 1993, a contested case hearing was held in (city), Texas, with (hearing officer) presiding as the hearing officer. The hearing was held under the provisions of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 8308-1.01 et seq. (Vernon Supp. 1993) (1989 Act). The issue at the hearing was whether the appellant (claimant herein) has an impairment rating as a result of her compensable injury of (date of injury). The hearing officer determined that the claimant has a five percent impairment rating based on the report of the designated doctor. On appeal, the claimant contends that the great weight of the medical evidence is contrary to the report of the designated doctor and requests that the hearing officer’s decision be reversed and a decision rendered that the claimant has a ten percent impairment rating as assigned by her treating doctor.
DECISION
The decision of the hearing officer is affirmed.
The parties stipulated that the claimant was injured in the course and scope of her employment with her employer, (employer), on (date of injury), and that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on November 24, 1992, which is the date of MMI found by the claimant’s treating doctor,(Dr. W).
The claimant testified that while she was at work on (date of injury), she stepped on a drainage device and, in doing so, twisted her right foot and ankle and twisted her body in order to keep from falling down. She has been treated by Dr. W for her injury. The claimant said she has stiffness in her right leg and is unable to bend, lift, or stoop. She also testified to the effect that she is unable to work because of her injury.
On November 17, 1992, the claimant was examined by (Dr. WI) at the request of the carrier. In a Report of Medical Evaluation (TWCC-69), Dr. WI certified that the claimant reached MMI on November 17, 1992, with a five percent impairment rating.
In a TWCC-69 dated November 24, 1992, Dr. W, the claimant’s treating doctor, certified that the claimant reached MMI on November 24, 1992, with a ten percent impairment rating. In a letter dated June 2, 1993, Dr. W wrote that the claimant is under his care for a lumbar sprain, disc degeneration and disc protrusion at L2-3 with spinal stenosis. He further stated that the claimant is limited in regard to her duration of sitting and standing, that she can walk only 2 to 3 blocks, that she is unable to bend or twist at the waist on a repeated basis, and that she cannot lift or carry over 15 pounds.
By order dated January 11, 1993, the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) selected (Dr. B) to be the designated doctor. In a TWCC-69 dated January 25, 1993, Dr. B certified that the claimant reached MMI on November 17, 1992, with a five percent impairment rating. Attached to Dr. B’s TWCC-69 is a 45 page report. Dr. B reviewed an MRI done in September 1991, set forth his findings on examination and testing of the claimant, and indicated that his opinion on the claimant’s impairment rating is based on the second printing, dated February, 1989, of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, third edition, published by the American Medical Association, which is the version of the Guides required to be used under Article 8308-4.24 for determining the existence and degree of an employee’s impairment.
As previously noted, the parties stipulated that the claimant reached MMI on November 24, 1992 (which was the date given by her treating doctor), so there was no disputed issue concerning MMI. The dispute was over the claimant’s impairment rating. “Impairment” means any anatomic or functional abnormality or loss existing after MMI that results from a compensable injury and is reasonably presumed to be permanent. Article 8308-1.03(24). “Impairment rating” means the percentage of permanent impairment of the whole body resulting from a compensable injury. Article 8308-1.03(25). Pursuant to Article 8308-4.26(g), the report of the designated doctor selected by the Commission, in this case Dr. B, has presumptive weight and the Commission must base the impairment rating on that report unless the great weight of the other medical evidence is to the contrary.
We have previously noted that it is not unusual to have disagreement or some degree of disparity between the reports of various doctors who have treated or examined an injured worker. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93105, decided March 26, 1993, and decisions cited therein. In Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92412, decided September 28, 1992, we pointed out that it is not just equally balancing evidence or a preponderance of the evidence that can overcome the presumptive weight given the designated doctor’s report, rather, such other medical evidence must be determined to be the “great weight” of the medical evidence contrary to the report. Moreover, no other doctor’s report, including that of the treating doctor, is accorded the special presumptive weight given the designated doctor’s report. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92366, decided September 10, 1992.
In the present case the hearing officer based the claimant’s impairment rating of five percent on the report of the designated doctor and found that the great weight of the other medical evidence was not contrary to the impairment rating assigned by the designated doctor. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the hearing officer’s findings, conclusions, and decision are supported by the evidence and are in accordance with the provisions of the 1989 Act.
The decision of the hearing officer is affirmed.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Stark O. Sanders, Jr. – Chief Appeals Judge
Joe Sebesta – Appeals Judge