This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was commenced on March 21, 2001, with the record closing on April 2, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues of extent of injury and disability by deciding:
1.The respondent’s (claimant herein) compensable injury sustained on __________, extended to include an injury to his neck.
2.The claimant had disability beginning on September 6, 2000, and continuing through the date of the CCH.
The appellant (carrier herein) files a request for review contending that the hearing officer’s finding of a neck injury and her finding of disability were contrary to the evidence. There is no response from the claimant in the appeal file.
DECISION
Finding sufficient evidence to support the decision of the hearing officer and no reversible error in the record, we affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
There was conflicting evidence presented at the CCH on the issue of extent of injury. The claimant testified that he was injured while working for the employer, a car rental company, when the vest he was furnished by the employer became caught on the edge of a car door, causing the door to close and catching the claimant’s head between the frame of the car and the door. The parties stipulated that the claimant suffered a compensable injury to his head. The claimant testified that he injured his neck and there is medical evidence supporting an injury to the claimant’s neck. There is also evidence in the testimony of the claimant and the medical evidence supporting the hearing officer’s finding of disability. The carrier presented a surveillance film, which it asserts shows the claimant driving[1], and also argues that the claimant attempted to return to work after his injury. The surveillance film mostly shows the claimant walking and shows him entering the passenger side of a pick-up truck while another individual entered the driver’s side. The claimant testified that he was told by the employer that he could not return to work until he had a full release to return to work. The question under our standard of review was whether the hearing officer’s determinations were 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). Applying this standard, we find sufficient evidence to support the hearing officer’s finding that the claimant’s injury extended to his neck and that the claimant had disability from September 6, 2000, continuing through the date of the CCH.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
- There was evidence that the claimant’s primary job duty was to drive cars to get washed and then drive the vehicles back to the employer’s lot. ↑