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 11, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury in the course and scope of her employment on __________; that the claimant did not have disability from November 3, 2000, to April 30, 2001; and that the respondent (self-insured) is relieved of liability under Section 409.002 because of the claimant’s failure to notify her employer pursuant to Section 409.001. The claimant has appealed these adverse rulings on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. The self-insured replied, urging that the decision and order of the hearing officer be affirmed.
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 she sustained damage or harm to the physical structure of the body, arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91028, decided October 23, 1991. There was conflicting evidence presented with regard to this issue, including the relation of different versions of how and when the alleged injuries happened. 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)). The Appeals Panel, an appellate-reviewing tribunal, 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).
DISABILITY
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not have disability from the alleged injuries. 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 was found not to have a compensable injury, the hearing officer properly concluded that the claimant did not have disability.
NOTICE OF INJURY
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant failed to timely notify her employer of a work-related injury, that the claimant did not have good cause for such failure to notify, and that the employer did not have actual notice of the incident or alleged injury of __________. Section 409.001(a) provides, in relevant part, that an employee or a person acting on the employee’s behalf shall notify the employer of an injury not later than the 30th day after the date on which the injury occurred. Failure to notify an employer as required by Section 409.001(a) relieves the employer and the carrier of liability, unless the employer or carrier has actual knowledge of the injury, good cause exists, or the claim is not contested. Section 409.002. Conflicting evidence was presented with regard to whether the claimant timely notified the employer. The hearing officer’s determination that the claimant failed to timely notify her employer of the alleged injury is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain, supra.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is employer and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge