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 15, 2001. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a lower back injury within the course and scope of his employment on __________; that the claimant did not report an injury to his employer within 30 days; and that the claimant did not have disability. On appeal, the claimant expresses disagreement with these determinations. The respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant had the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he sustained a compensable injury on __________, and thereafter had disability, and these issues presented the hearing officer with questions of fact to resolve. Section 409.001 requires 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 occurs. Failure to do so, absent a showing of good cause or actual knowledge of the injury by the employer, relieves the carrier and employer of liability for the payment of benefits for the injury. Section 409.002. Whether, and, if so, when, notice is given is a question of fact for the hearing officer to decide. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93761, decided October 4, 1993. Similarly, whether good cause exists for failing to timely report an injury is a question for the fact finder. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93550, decided August 12, 1993.
The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)) and it is for the hearing officer to resolve such conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence as were present in this case (Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co., 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ)). As an appellate reviewing body, we 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. 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). The claimant argues that he had good cause for his failure to report the injury because he was given misleading information that he was not covered by workers’ compensation. There was conflicting evidence from the claimant’s supervisor that the claimant was advised at the time he was hired that he was covered by workers’ compensation insurance. The hearing officer was free to credit the supervisor’s testimony over that of the claimant in resolving the good cause issue. We are satisfied that the evidence sufficiently supports the hearing officer’s determinations that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on __________; did not report an injury to his employer within 30 days or have good cause for failing to do so; and did not have disability.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the carrier is SERVICE LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
JOSEPH KELLEY-GRAY, PRESIDENT
6907 CAPITOL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY NORTH
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78755.
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge