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 October 1, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable injury of __________, does not extend to left or right knee chondromalacia, or to right knee internal derangement, and that the claimant had disability resulting from her compensable injury from January 6, 2000, through January 16, 2000. The claimant appealed and the carrier responded.
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
EXTENT ISSUE
The claimant had the burden to prove the extent of her compensable injury. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 001769, decided September 8, 2000. The issue regarding the extent of the claimant’s compensable injury presented a fact question for the hearing officer to determine. Conflicting evidence was presented at the CCH. 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. With regard to the claimant’s complaint about a carrier exhibit, we note that the claimant did not object to the exhibit at the CCH and thus did not preserve any complaint on appeal regarding that exhibit. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 011811, decided September 17, 2001. The hearing officer’s decision that the claimant’s compensable injury does not extend to left or right knee chondromalacia, or to an internal derangement of the right knee, is supported by sufficient evidence and is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
DISABILITY ISSUE
Section 401.011(16) defines “disability” as “inability because of a compensable injury to obtain and retain employment at wages equivalent to the preinjury wage.” Conflicting evidence was also presented on this issue. The hearing officer resolved the conflicts in the evidence by determining that the claimant had disability from January 6, 2000, through January 16, 2000. The hearing officer’s decision on the disability issue is supported by sufficient evidence and is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain, supra.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS, SUITE 750, COMMODORE I
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge