Following a contested case hearing held November 10, 1995, pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act), the hearing officer, ________, resolved the two disputed issues by determining that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on ___________, and that he had disability as a result of the compensable injury from ______ through __________. The appellant (carrier) appeals these determinations on evidentiary sufficiency grounds. Claimant did not file a response.
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision has become final pursuant to Section 410.169 because the carrier’s appeal was not timely filed with the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission).
Section 410.202(a) provides that “[t]o appeal the decision of a hearing officer, a party shall file a written request for appeal with the appeals panel not later than the 15th day after the date on which the decision of the hearing officer is received from the division and shall on the same date serve a copy of the request for appeal on the other party.”
See also Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 143.3(a) (Rule 143.3(a)). Rule 143.3(c) provides that a request for review shall be presumed to be timely filed if it is: (1) mailed on or before the 15th day after the date of receipt of the hearing officer’s decision, and (2) received by the Commission not later than the 20th day after the date of receipt of the hearing office’s decision. Rule 102.5(b) provides that, unless otherwise specified by rule, all notices and communications to insurance carriers will be sent to the carrier’s Austin representative as provided by Rule 156.1. Rule 156.1(a) provides that each insurance carrier shall designate a person in Austin, Travis County, Texas, as its representative to the Commission to act as agent for receiving notice from the Commission. And see TWCC Advisory 93-11, dated November 4, 1993.
According to the Commission’s records, the hearing officer’s decision was distributed to the parties on December 18, 1995, under a cover letter dated December 14, 1995. Commission records show that the carrier’s Austin representative received the hearing officer’s decision on the day it was distributed to the parties, December 18, 1995. Since under Rule 156.1(a) the carrier’s Austin representative acts as the carrier’s agent for receiving notices from the Commission, receipt of the hearing officer’s decision by the carrier’s Austin representative is receipt by the carrier. Thus, the carrier received the hearing officer’s decision on December 18, 1995, and it had 15 days thereafter, that is, until January 2, 1996, a Tuesday, to file its appeal.
The carrier’s appeal was dated, mailed and also transmitted by electronic document transfer to the Commission on January 3, 1996. Since the carrier’s appeal was not filed with the Commission within the 15-day statutory time period for filing the appeal, we conclude that it was not timely filed. Pursuant to Section 410.169, a decision of a hearing officer regarding benefits is final in the absence of a timely appeal.
The hearing officer’s decision and order have become final under Section 410.169.
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Stark O. Sanders, Jr. – Chief Appeals Judge
Tommy W. Lueders – Appeals Judge