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 October 8, 2001. With respect to the issues before her, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable repetitive trauma injury with a date of injury of __________, and that she did not have disability because she did not sustain a compensable injury. In her appeal, the claimant asserts that those determinations are against the great weight of the evidence. In its response to the claimant’s appeal, the respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not sustain a compensable repetitive trauma injury with a date of injury of __________. The claimant had the burden to prove that she sustained damage or harm to the physical structure of her body resulting from repetitively traumatic activities performed at work. 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 under Section 410.165(a) and, as the trier of fact, resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and decides what facts the evidence has established. Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The hearing officer was not persuaded that the claimant sustained her burden of proving that she sustained a compensable repetitive trauma injury. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the hearing officer’s injury determination in that regard is so against the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. As such, no sound basis exists for us to disturb that determination on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
Given our affirmance of the determination that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, we likewise affirm the determination that the claimant did not have disability. By definition, the 1989 Act requires the existence of a compensable injury as a prerequisite to a finding of disability. Section 401.011(16).
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C.T. CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge