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 6, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on ____________, and that the claimant did not have disability. The claimant appealed and the respondent (carrier) responded.
DECISION
As reformed herein, the hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
The hearing officer’s decision is reformed to reflect the correct spelling of the claimant’s surname.
Section 401.011(10) defines “compensable injury.” The claimant had the burden to prove that he was injured in the course and scope of his employment. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). The claimant testified that he injured his lower back using a pallet jack at work on ____________. The claimant said he had several prior back injuries. The claimant’s treating doctor reported that the claimant sustained a new injury. The doctor who examined the claimant at the carrier’s request reported that the claimant most likely did not sustain a new injury and attributed the claimant’s complaints to the claimant’s prior back problems. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the finder of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts in the evidence and determines what facts have been established from the evidence presented. The hearing officer’s finding that the claimant was not injured in the course and scope of his employment on __________, and his determination that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on __________, 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. Without a compensable injury, the claimant would not have disability as defined by Section 401.011(16).
The hearing officer’s decision and order, as reformed herein, are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS, COMMODORE #1, SUITE 750
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge