![]() However, once the first quarter of SIBs has expired and there has been no challenge of the MMI date and/or the IR, the claimant is not precluded from alleging that the compensable injury extends to include other conditions not included in the IR. A determination that the compensable injury extends to various other conditions not included in the IR will not allow the claimant to then challenge the date of MMI and/or the IR if there was no pending dispute regarding MMI and/or IR prior to the expiration of the first quarter of SIBs. The fact that the date of MMI and IR become final under these circumstances applies equally to the claimant and the carrier. Rule 130.102(g) provides that if there is no pending dispute regarding the date of MMI or the IR prior to the expiration of the first quarter, the date of the MMI and the IR shall be final and binding. 040150-s is currently pending before a district court and one of the arguments being made, “and has been well received by the District Court Judge,” is that the Appeals Panel is treating the parties differently with respect to the application of Rule 130.102(g). The carrier represents in its appeal that Appeal No. 040150-s was expressly limited and specifically stated that the holding should not be construed as limiting claimants from expanding on what is included in the compensable injury. The hearing officer correctly noted that the holding in Appeal No. ![]() 040150-s, the Appeals Panel held that pursuant to Rule 130.102(g) a carrier waived the right to dispute the extent of injury where: (1) the carrier contends that the compensable injury does not extend to a condition or body part (2) an IR that includes impairment for that condition or body part and (3) the IR has not been challenged before the first supplemental income benefits (SIBs) quarter has expired. The carrier contends that it was error for the hearing officer to have found that the claimant did not waive his right to the extent of his injury for bowel, bladder, and sexual dysfunction because the compensable injury, as defined by the IR, did not include these conditions and they were known as far back as 2000, “according to the claimant and the hearing officer.” The carrier argues that the hearing officer misapplied both Appeal No. The evidence reflects that the 21% IR includes impairment assessed for the cervical spine, lumbar spine, and left shoulder. The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on _, which included “at least his lumbar spine, cervical spine, and left rotator cuff…” and that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on July 20, 2002, per the designated doctor, with a 21% impairment rating (IR). The claimant responded, urging affirmance of the disputed determinations. 040150-s, decided March 8, 2004, and a theory of equitable waiver. ![]() The carrier additionally argues that the waiver determination was in error, relying on Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. The appellant (carrier) appealed, arguing that the claimant failed to provide evidence that the extent of injury conditions in dispute are related to his compensable injury by means of a reasonable degree of medical probability. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the compensable injury extends to include bowel and bladder dysfunction (urinary incontinence and sensory deficiency) and erectile dysfunction and that the respondent (claimant) did not waive his right to the extent of his injury for bowel, bladder, and sexual dysfunction. A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on March 28, 2005. This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |