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 September 25, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by concluding that the compensable injury of ___________, does not extend to include reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome to appellant’s (claimant) right upper extremity. The claimant appeals on sufficiency grounds. Respondent (carrier) responds that the Appeals Panel should affirm the decision and order.
DECISION
We affirm.
We have reviewed the complained-of determination regarding extent of injury and conclude that the issue involved a fact question for the hearing officer. The hearing officer reviewed the record and decided what facts were established. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determination is 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).
We find no merit in claimant’s assertion that the hearing officer failed to review all of the evidence. Section 410.168 requires only that the hearing officer make findings of fact and conclusions of law and does not require a statement of the case or statement of the evidence. The hearing officer stated in the decision that he considered all of the evidence. We perceive no error.
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
According to information provided by carrier, the true corporate name of the insurance carrier is ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
GARY SUDOL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
9330 LBJ FREEWAY, SUITE 1200
DALLAS, TEXAS 75243.
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge