This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing was held on August 23, 2000. The hearing officer determined that: (1) the __________, compensable injury of the respondent (claimant) was a producing cause of her current low back and left shoulder injuries; (2) claimant’s February 20, 1998, motor vehicle accident (MVA) was not the sole cause of the current low back and left shoulder injuries; and (3) claimant is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the third quarter. Respondent self-insured (carrier) appealed the determinations regarding producing cause and sole cause on sufficiency grounds. The file does not contain a response from claimant. The SIBs determinations were not appealed.
DECISION
We affirm.
Carrier contends the hearing officer erred in determining that claimant’s __________, compensable injury was a producing cause of her current low back and left shoulder injuries and that her subsequent MVA in February 1998 was not the sole cause of these injuries. Carrier asserts that: (1) the hearing officer failed to discuss inconsistencies regarding causation; (2) the same parts of claimant’s body were involved in both accidents; (3) the hearing officer did not mention that claimant had told her workers’ compensation adjuster that only her right shoulder and neck were injured in the MVA; and (4) the hearing officer did not mention that claimant complained of low back problems after the MVA.
The substance of the expert evidence, including the reasons given for the opinions expressed, must be considered in resolving the issue of causation. The use of “magic words” by an expert does not in itself establish causation. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 950455, decided May 9, 1995; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91124, decided February 12, 1992. Section 408.021 provides that an injured employee “is entitled to all health care reasonably required by the nature of the injury as and when needed.” Our appellate standard of review in this case is discussed in Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 001318, decided July 24, 2000.
The background facts are summarized in the hearing officer’s decision and order. Briefly, claimant testified that she sustained a compensable injury on __________, when she fell, hitting her left shoulder and falling on her back. Claimant said she underwent rotator cuff surgery a few months after her injury. Claimant said she was still undergoing treatment for her back and shoulder injuries when she was injured in an MVA on February 20, 1998. Claimant said her car was hit from behind, that her car was “totaled,” and that she sustained a neck injury, right shoulder injury, and soreness in her back. Claimant said her back improved after about a month so that it was in the same condition it had been before the MVA.
The hearing officer considered the medical evidence and determined that the __________, compensable injury is a producing cause of claimant’s current low back and left shoulder injuries. The hearing officer noted that the medical records from the MVA supported claimant’s testimony that the body parts injured in the subsequent MVA were the right shoulder and neck. The initial medical records after the MVA do mention low back pain and bruises on her arms; however, claimant’s initial diagnoses in February 1998 involved her thoracic spine and cervical spine, and bruising. Claimant’s later medical records stated that she had severe whiplash and a thoracic and a cervical “strain” and indicate that the physical therapy given was to her back, neck and shoulders. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility to be given to the evidence, including medical evidence. See Appeal No. 001318, supra. Carrier had the burden to prove that the subsequent MVA was the sole cause of claimant’s current condition. The hearing officer considered carrier’s assertions but determined that the compensable injury was a producing cause of claimant’s current low back and left shoulder condition and that carrier did not meet its burden to prove sole cause. The hearing officer considered carrier’s assertions regarding sole cause, any inconsistencies in claimant’s evidence, claimant’s receipt of settlement monies after her MVA, the amount of medical expenses incurred by claimant regarding her MVA, and evidence that claimant complained of back pain after her MVA. The hearing officer decided what weight to give to the evidence and was entitled to believe or disbelieve any part of the evidence or testimony in this case. We note that the hearing officer was required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, but was not required to discuss all of the evidence. We have reviewed the evidence and carrier’s assertions and we conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
Judy L. Stephens
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge