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 19, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by concluding that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury to his low back on __________, but only an exacerbation of the symptoms of his injury of __________; the claimant did not notify any supervisor or manager of the employer until March 2001 that he had sustained a low back injury in the year 2000; and because the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury he did not have disability. Claimant has requested our review of these conclusions and the underlying factual findings for evidentiary sufficiency. The respondent (carrier) urges in response that the evidence is sufficient to support the challenged findings.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant testified he worked as a photojournalist for the employer. He stated that he had sustained back injuries previously in 1995 and 1997 before coming to work for the employer. The claimant testified that he suffered an onset of low back pain while on assignment on __________. The claimant described a different incident where he claimed an injury to his low back occurred on __________. Though the claimant testified that he told his supervisor of the incident of __________, on the day it occurred, his supervisor denied being aware of the incident until eight or nine months after the fact. The claimant testified he told other coworkers of the incident but there was evidence that the people he alleged he told were not supervisors. The claimant’s first visit to his treating doctor in March 2001 references the incident the claimant described occurred on __________.
The hearing officer did not err in concluding that the carrier was relieved from liability because the claimant had not timely reported his alleged injury. Pursuant to Section 409.001(a), the claimant was required to report his injury no later than the 30th day of its occurrence or, pursuant to Section 409.002 of the 1989 Act, the carrier is relieved of liability for the claimant’s alleged injury.
The testimony of Ms. S the news director of the employer and claimant’s supervisor supports the hearing officer’s decision. There was conflicting testimony on this issue. Ms. S testified she did not know of the alleged incident until eight or nine months after the alleged incident, well beyond 30 days after the alleged date of injury, __________. Also supporting the hearing officer’s decision is correspondence from the business manager of the employer dated May 1, 2001, stating the claimant changed his originally reported date of incident to __________. A document dated May 8, 2001, from Ms. S evidences that the claimant originally claimed __________, as his date of injury.
The claimant had the burden of proving that he sustained a compensable injury as claimed. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). Whether he did so was a question of fact for the hearing officer to decide. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93449, decided July 21, 1993. Section 410.165(a) provides that the hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. He was not persuaded by the claimant’s evidence that he met his burden of proof and resolved the credibility question against the claimant. We will reverse a factual determination of a hearing officer only if that determination is 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, 176 (Tex. 1986); Pool v. Ford Motor Company, 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). Applying this standard of review to the record of this case, we find the evidence sufficient to support the determination of the hearing officer that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury.
We also find no error in the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant did not have disability, as the 1989 Act requires a finding of the existence of a compensable injury as 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 ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICES COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge