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 held on July 5, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable right wrist injury on ______________, and that the claimant has had disability from January 31, 2001, and continuing through the date of the CCH.
The appellant (carrier) appeals the hearing officer’s decision that the claimant sustained a repetitive trauma injury, emphasizing a surveillance videotape. The claimant responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant had been employed as a shipping/billing clerk for six or seven years. The claimant testified about her writing and keyboarding duties and that for a period of time prior to October 2000, she had felt fatigue and soreness in her right wrist. The claimant testified that on October 23, 2000, she was turning a faucet handle at work when she felt a snap or pop in her right wrist and experienced immediate sharp pain. The claimant said that she reported the injury and continued working. The claimant testified that by January 4, 2001, she continued to have pain in her wrist and her supervisor took her to Dr. T, who has subsequently become her treating doctor. The claimant was released to light duty with restrictions on the use of her right hand. The employer accommodated the claimant until January 31, 2001, when she was advised that the carrier was disputing her injury and light duty was no longer available.
Dr. T testified at the CCH that he had diagnosed the claimant with de Quervain’s tenosynovitis. Dr. T testified that within a reasonable degree of medical probability, the claimant’s work activities over the years had caused the claimant’s condition and that the act of turning the faucet handle on October 23, 2000, was the “straw that broke the camel’s back.” Although testing was essentially negative, an orthopedic specialist agreed with Dr. T’s diagnosis.
The carrier, both at the CCH and on appeal, relies principally on a surveillance videotape taken on May 25, 2001, which shows the claimant opening and closing doors, shopping, lifting her 30-pound child out of a car seat, and performing other activities of daily living. Dr. T was shown the video and testified that it did not change his mind and how one could perform occasional tasks such as a woman holding a child on her hip, which would not directly affect the wrist. The hearing officer commented that he found both Dr. T’s and the claimant’s testimony credible. We decline to substitute our judgment for that of the hearing officer in interpreting what the videotape may or may not show.
The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)), 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)), and determines what facts have been established from the conflicting evidence. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Escalera, 385 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.). 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.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS, STE. 750
COMMODORE 1
AUSTIN, TX 78701.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge