Title: 

APD 010900

Significant Decision

Date: 

June 12, 2001

Issues: 

Disabilty/Existence-Duration, Existence of Compensable Inj

Table of Contents

APD 010900

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 April 11, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that on __________, the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury and, as a result, had disability from __________, through December 21, 2000. The appellant (self-insured) appealed and there was no response from the claimant.

DECISION

The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.

The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on __________. The parties stipulated that if the hearing officer determined that the claimant sustained a compensable injury, the period of disability would be from__________, through December 21, 2000. The claimant testified that he was performing his job duties on __________, when he slipped on water inside the refrigerated trailer and fell, striking the back of his head. The carrier asserts that the claimant’s injuries could not have occurred the way the claimant alleges. There was conflicting medical evidence submitted as to whether such an accident could cause the extensive head injuries the claimant has been diagnosed as having. In her Statement of the Evidence, the hearing officer states, “Claimant was a credible witness and I find that he has established an __________, compensable injury with resultant disability from 08-27-00 through 12-21-00.” Section 410.165(a) provides that the hearing officer is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence offered as well as the weight and credibility that is to be given the evidence. As the trier of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts in the evidence. The hearing officer’s determinations are supported by sufficient evidence and are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.

The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.

Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge

CONCUR:

Robert E. Lang

Appeals Panel

Manager/Judge

Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge