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 20, 1993, (hearing officer) presiding as hearing officer. He determined that the appellant’s (claimant) correct impairment rating was five percent as assessed by the Commission-appointed designated doctor. Claimant appeals and urges the impairment rating of the designated doctor is not correct and that he is still not able to work. The respondent (carrier) asks that the decision be affirmed.
DECISION
Finding the evidence sufficient to support the determination of the hearing officer, and not finding the medical evidence contrary to the designated doctor’s report to be the great weight of the medical evidence, we affirm.
The single issue to be determined was the correct impairment rating. That the claimant had sustained a serious injury to the pelvis in a work-related accident in early (date) was not in dispute. He was hospitalized for a short period of time and no surgical procedures were required. He was under treatment by a (Dr. D) for a period of almost six months and then changed to (Dr. G). Dr. G certified that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on September 24, 1992 with a 19% whole body impairment rating. The carrier contested the impairment rating and a (Dr. R) was designated by the Commission to perform an impairment rating which he did, certifying MMI on December 28, 1992, with a five percent whole body impairment. Both Dr. R and Dr. G filed reports to explain their ratings. Dr. G does not agree with the five percent rating of Dr. R and states that Dr. R did not address the symphysis pubis separation. Dr. R states in his report that “[h]owever, basing on the subluxation of the symphysis pubis with a chip fracture with no residual urological problems, he has the following disability” and goes on to provide ratings for loss of abduction and adduction. His report appears to rule out any displacement, deformity and residuals from the healed fractures as a consideration under Section 3.4 of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Third Edition, American Medical Association. Dr. G’s report also states that the claimant “has no change in symptomatology” and “there is nothing we can do to help him,” that the claimant “is still in a problem because he never has understood what is going on and the fact that there is nothing we can do to make him better,” and that “he needs to go ahead and get to work and do something that would be advantageous to him” since “the pain and tightness he has” is not going to be solved by surgical intervention. The claimant testified that he still experiences pain and is not able to work. He also complains that Dr. R did not give him an adequate examination although he does acknowledge that Dr. R did have him perform certain movements such as stepping, bending, walking and did review his x-rays. Medical records are consistent with notations that the claimant’s injury takes time to completely heal and that some discomfort is to be expected and is normal. Dr. D’s earlier medical reports appear to be consistent with the report of Dr. R.
The hearing officer accorded presumptive weight to the designated doctor’s (Dr. R) report and determined that the great weight of other medical evidence was not to the contrary. Article 8308-4.26(g). We do not find a sufficient basis to disturb the hearing officer’s finding and conclusion in this regard. We have repeatedly held that the certification of an impairment rating of a designated doctor occupies a “unique position” under the 1989 Act and that not a mere balancing of the evidence will suffice to discard a designated doctor’s certification. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92412, decided September 28, 1992; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92366, decided September 10, 1992. The hearing officer, as the fact finder, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence and of the weight and credibility to be given the evidence. Article 8308-6.34(e). Where there is sufficient evidence to support his determination, as here, and the determinations are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust, there is no sound basis to disturb his decision. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92232, decided July 20, 1992. While we can understand the claimant’s concern with the circumstance that he is still experiencing some degree of pain, we have previously held that MMI does not mean an injured person will necessarily be pain free particularly where there is a rating of some impairment. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92270, decided August 6, 1992.
The decision is affirmed.
Stark O. Sanders, Jr. – Chief Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Joe Sebesta – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge