Title: 

APD 011698

Significant Decision

Date: 

August 30, 2001

Issues: 

Disabilty/Existence-Duration, Existence of Compensable Inj

Table of Contents

APD 011698

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 July 5, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on __________, and did not have disability. The claimant appeals the determinations on sufficiency grounds. The respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.

DECISION

Affirmed.

Compensable Injury

The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on __________. The claimant had the burden to prove that he sustained damage or harm to the physical structure of his body, arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91028, decided October 23, 1991. There was conflicting evidence presented with regard to this issue. 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, including the medical evidence (Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ)). In view of the evidence presented, we cannot conclude that the hearing officer’s determination is 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 (Tex. 1986).

Disability

The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not have disability. The 1989 Act requires the existence of a compensable injury as a prerequisite to a finding of disability. Section 401.011(16). Because the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, the hearing officer properly concluded that the claimant did not have disability.

The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.

The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (carrier) and the name and address of it’s registered agent for service of process is

(Company)

(Address)

(City), Texas

Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge

CONCUR:

Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge

Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge