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 24, 2001. With regard to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that: (1) appellant (claimant) sustained an injury in the course and scope of employment; (2) the date of injury is in __________; (3) respondent (carrier) is relieved of liability for workers’ compensation benefits because the claimant did not timely report the injury to his employer; and (4) claimant did not have disability. Claimant appeals, contending that the hearing officer’s determinations are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Claimant also contends that the hearing officer made various legal errors. Carrier responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
We affirm.
Claimant contends the hearing officer misplaced the burden of proof regarding timely notice. Claimant contends that carrier should bear this burden. We conclude that the hearing officer did not err in placing the burden of proof on claimant to prove that he timely reported his injury. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 002533, decided December 8, 2000.
Claimant contends the hearing officer erred in failing to consider whether claimant had good cause for failure to timely report his injury. However, claimant’s assertion at the hearing was that the injury was reported timely and the issue of good cause was not raised by the evidence. We perceive no error.
Claimant complains that the hearing officer did not make a specific determination regarding the date of injury, but found only that it was in __________. The better practice is to find a specific date of injury based on the evidence. However, in this case, the injury was not reported until January 2001. If the date of injury is in __________, then a report of injury in January 2001, without good cause, is late. The fact finding regarding date of injury was adequate in that the hearing officer was able to fully address the timely reporting issue before him. We perceive no reversible error.
Claimant appeals the hearing officer’s determinations regarding date of injury and timely reporting on sufficiency grounds. We have reviewed the complained-of determinations and we conclude that they 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). Because claimant did not have a compensable injury, he did not have disability.
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge