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 September 5, 2000. The hearing officer determined that the __________, compensable injury of the appellant (claimant) did not include a neck and right knee injury. Claimant appealed these determinations on sufficiency grounds. Respondent (carrier) responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
DECISION
We affirm.
Claimant contends the hearing officer erred in determining that she did not sustain a compensable knee and neck injury when she injured her back on __________. Claimant asserts that the focus was on her more serious back injury, though she also injured her knee and neck and told her doctors about this. Claimant testified that she fell from a stepladder, hit her back on a shelf, and then bounced back onto the cement ground on her buttocks and “on her head.” Claimant said she also hit her knee and her shoulder when she fell. Claimant was diagnosed with a sacral stress fracture and it is undisputed that she injured her back in the fall. In a pain drawing from medical records dated March 11, 1997, only back pain is indicated. In a July 17, 1997, report, Dr. N stated that claimant “hurt her back,” and that she complained of back pain. Regarding his general physical examination, he also noted that claimant had full range of motion (ROM) in her neck. Dr. N did not mention knee pain but said that claimant had lumbar radicular syndrome and that she complained of tingling, paresthesia, and “pain down the lower extremities.” In August 1997, Dr. L noted that claimant had full ROM in her neck and knees and that there was no effusion noted in her lower extremities. Dr. MI noted that claimant complained of neck stiffness in a September 1997 medical note. Claimant began treating with Dr. E in April 1997, and he noted cervical pain in an April 10, 1997, report, but did not mention knee pain. In June 2000, Dr. E stated that claimant’s diagnoses included internal derangement of the knee, suggestive chondromalacia patella, posttraumatic cervicothoracic sprain/strain with left radiculopathy, and cervicobrachial syndrome. Claimant’s supervisor testified that claimant did not mention a knee or neck injury when she reported that she fell. He also said that he did not think claimant could have fallen to the floor because the closet where she fell was full of cups and other items.
It was claimant’s burden to establish that she also injured her knee and neck when she injured her back. The trier of fact judges the weight to be given to the evidence and resolves any conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). We have reviewed the record and evidence regarding the scope of the compensable injury. The hearing officer considered the evidence regarding whether claimant’s early medical providers mentioned neck or knee pain, whether claimant indicated that she had knee and neck pain in initial pain drawings, whether medical examinations showed knee and neck problems, and whether claimant mentioned her neck or knee when reporting her injury to employer. The hearing officer considered claimant’s testimony regarding whether she also sustained a knee and neck injury. After reviewing all the evidence, we conclude that the hearing officer’s determination in this regard is 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:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge