This appeal arises under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. et seq. (Vernon Supp. 1993) (1989 Act). On March 2 and April 13, 1993, a contested case hearing was held in (city), Texas, with (hearing officer) presiding as hearing officer. The sole issue before the hearing officer was: “Did [claimant] suffer an injury during the course and scope of his employment with Houston Sports Association on (date of injury).” The hearing officer determined that the appellant, claimant herein, failed to prove that he suffered an injury during the course and scope of his employment on (date of injury).
Claimant filed a timely request for review alleging that the hearing officer (and Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission)) was “corrupt,” and had “harassed” and “intimidated” the claimant, was “prejudice (sic) and incompetent” and had “refused to excuse himself” from the case. Respondent, carrier herein, files a response, points out that claimant has not addressed the merits of the case and requests that we affirm the hearing officer’s decision.
DECISION
Having thoroughly reviewed all the documentary evidence, including claimant’s “Official Petition” dated March 4, 1993, the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Executive Director’s response, tapes of the March 2, 1993 portion of the contested case hearing (CCH) as well as tapes and transcript of the April 13, 1993 portion of the CCH, we find no error and affirm the decision of the hearing officer.
At the outset we note that claimant has presented no evidence on the merits of this case, choosing instead to attempt to disqualify the hearing officer on grounds that the hearing officer had “intimidated” the claimant, was a “racist,” was “prejudiced” and was “anti-minority.” Claimant made his views known in a letter (labeled “Official Petition”) dated March 4, 1993 to various state and federal officials. Apparently in response to that letter the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Executive Director, by letter dated March 17, 1993, notified claimant that he had requested his staff review the tapes, that the review did not support claimant’s contentions, that claimant should contact an Ombudsman for assistance and that the case would be rescheduled. Claimant did not avail himself of assistance of an Ombudsman and at the reconvened hearing on April 13, 1993, claimant continued to tell the hearing officer that the hearing officer was not “to oversee his case,” and that the hearing officer was “bias (sic) and prejudice.” As stated initially, the tapes of the March 2nd and April 13th hearings have been reviewed, as have the transcript and claimant’s allegations. We find no basis for any of claimant’s allegations and find that the hearing officer conducted himself properly, professionally, and afforded claimant every opportunity to present his case.
As to the merits of the case, claimant’s initial claim for compensation, as stated on Employer’s First Report of Injury (TWCC-1) and recited at the benefit review conference (BRC), was that claimant was employed by (employer) to park cars at the Astrodome and on (date of injury), claimant was pushed or shoved against a wall by two other male employees. The medical history recorded by (Dr. T), who apparently treated claimant, in a report dated August 6, 1992, states claimant told him “… two tall black employees started to hassle him . . . (and) pushed him against a wall repeatedly hitting the back of his head and also his neck on the wall. One of these co-workers held his jaw between his thumb and fingers . . . causing the bridge to his teeth to pop out.” Dr. T, after detailing an extensive examination, concluded:
At this time, ten days after the event, I find no evidence on the surface of recent head, neck, or back trauma. In the event of severe impact against a wall, one would expect the presence of same, although. (sic) of course, lesser impacts might be expected to have resolved by now. I find no objective evidence of cervical or thoracic strain or contusion.
A BRC was conducted on December 14, 1992. The claimant’s position was that he was injured at work when he was pushed into the wall by two employees, and “[t]here were no other witnesses.” Carrier’s position was that the alleged accident conflicts with coworker’s accounts about the physical assault. The benefit review officer recommended that claimant had a compensable injury.
A CCH convened on March 2, 1993 collapsed when the hearing officer asked claimant to take an oath or affirm he was telling the truth (i.e. be sworn). The CCH was recessed in order to allow the claimant to move to recuse the hearing officer. Claimant’s March 4, 1993 letter did that and the motion was denied.
At the reconvened CCH on April 13, 1993, claimant refused to participate and left. In that claimant declined to testify there was no evidence to support the alleged injury. (MB) testified she witnessed a portion of a verbal argument between claimant and (OT) and (LA). She testified that there was an on going verbal argument which was finally broken up by a policeman. MB testified that no blows were struck and the parties did not touch each other. (GJ) testified that he was employed on the same job as claimant, OT and LA on July 25th, that there was an argument about parking a van in the handicapped area and that OT and LA got into a shouting match with claimant. GJ stated nobody touched anyone and that claimant did not fall or otherwise bump into a wall. GJ testified he had been trying to keep the parties separated and that a policeman finally came over and told them to break it up. GJ testified claimant called him the next day and told him the police had thrown him against the wall. GJ confirmed that MB had been present during much of the argument.
We would also note that claimant alleges in his March 4, 1992, letter that he, claimant, “. . . was assaulted verbally by (carrier’s attorney) who later confessed to it.” Carrier’s attorney adamantly denies having “. . . confessed to having verbally assaulted him, because no such assault took place.” We also note that claimant in his March 4, 1993, letter states “I’m convinced the TWCC is a corrupt agency and I believe [the hearing officer] is involved in bribery and perjury.” We find absolutely no evidence of any assault, verbal or otherwise, by Mr. Smith or that the hearing officer engaged in any improper conduct.
Finding no evidence to support any of claimant’s allegations, either of a physical injury sustained on (date of injury), or regarding numerous allegations of misconduct by
the hearing officer, or evidence of “corruption” by the Commission we affirm the decision of the hearing officer on the merits of the case.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge