Following a contested case hearing held on July 21, 1998, pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act), the hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by determining that the appellant (claimant) sustained a skull injury on _________, but does not suffer from either incurable imbecility or incurable insanity as a result of that injury and is not entitled to lifetime income benefits (LIBS). Claimant has filed an appeal which, in essence, asserts that even if his condition does not meet the statutory requirements for LIBS, he should nonetheless be entitled to such benefits because his condition is so serious and deprives him of the ability to earn wages. The respondent (carrier) has filed a response urging the sufficiency of the evidence and our affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
Section 408.161(a)(6) provides, as to injuries occurring on or before September 1, 1997, that LIBS are paid until the death of the employee for “an injury to the skull resulting in incurable insanity or imbecility.”
Claimant, in his opening statement below, stated that “even though the problems he is having related to the head injury that he sustained are not described as one of the conditions under the [LIBS], he feels that he has an impairment that he has to deal with for the rest of his life . . . he feels he’s entitled to the LIBS because of these problems that he is having.” In closing argument, claimant stated that “even though his condition may not be described under the criteria for [LIBS], he feels that his condition is one that has affected his life . . . and has made him a completely different person that what he was before.” Claimant did not contend below that he had either incurable insanity or incurable imbecility nor does he on appeal call our attention to any authority for the proposition that LIBS may be awarded by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission for some mental or emotional condition not amounting to incurable insanity or imbecility. While we believe claimant is thus not entitled to LIBS as a matter of law, we will nonetheless briefly review the evidence and consider its sufficiency to support the hearing officer’s findings of fact.
Claimant testified that on _________, while working as a claims adjuster, he slid off a roof he was inspecting, landed on his back, and struck his head; that he continued to work for some time thereafter but developed double vision and was determined to have sustained a closed head injury; that he has received psychiatric treatment for depression including inpatient psychiatric treatment at a hospital; that he continues to see his psychiatrist, Dr. S, and takes four different medications to maintain control over his emotions; that all the doctors have said he cannot return to work; that he has problems controlling his anger; and that he has threatened to kill himself and to blow up a building. He further stated that his injury resulted in his spending his savings and in his divorcing his wife after 23 years of marriage although he has recently remarried.
Dr. S’s report of February 16, 1998, stated that claimant has been a patient since September 29, 1992, for depression secondary to a severe head injury; that he was admitted to a hospital on May 28, 1996, because he had planned to kill himself; that he has neurologic deficits (double vision, stumbling gait, lisping speech, and severe memory and recall problems); that he has visual impairment; and that, psychiatrically, his head trauma resulted in an explosive temperament and impulsive, violent behavior when faced with frustrating experiences such as traffic and parking problems.
Dr. B, a psychiatrist, reported on March 9, 1998, that he examined claimant, that his diagnosis is emotional lability and depression secondary to organic brain syndrome (in addition to double vision, ataxia, and difficulty walking), and that claimant is neither insane nor an imbecile.
The hearing officer found that on _________, claimant sustained a compensable head injury and that he sustained an injury to his skull as a part of that injury. While the medical records do make mention of a closed head injury, they do not refer to “an injury to the skull,” as such. However, that finding is not appealed.
The hearing officer also found that as a result of the _________, injury, claimant suffers from an impulse disorder; that although he is prone to violent impulses, he appreciates the propriety of the envisioned actions, appreciates that they are neither socially, morally, nor legally acceptable, and can control his impulses; and that claimant does not suffer from incurable imbecility nor from incurable insanity.
The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)) and as the trier of fact resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence (Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ)). As an appellate reviewing tribunal, the Appeals Panel will not disturb the challenged factual findings of a hearing officer unless they are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust and we do not find them so in this case. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951).
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Joe Sebesta – Appeals Judge
Christopher L. Rhodes – Appeals Judge