This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). At the contested case hearing held on July 2, 2001, the hearing officer concluded that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on ___________; that she did not have disability; that she did not timely notify her employer of her claimed injury and did not have good cause for her failure to do so; and that the respondent (self-insured) did not waive the right to dispute compensability by failing to timely and adequately file a dispute pursuant to Sections 409.021 and 409.022. In Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 011946, decided September 25, 2001, the Appeals Panel reversed and remanded the case for the hearing officer to further develop the record concerning a copy of the Payment of Compensation or Notice of Refused/Disputed Claim (TWCC-21) bearing the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s (Commission) stamped date of receipt and for specific findings concerning both the adequacy and timeliness of the TWCC-21. The hearing officer determined that a remand hearing was not necessary and issued a remand decision containing additional discussion of the evidence and additional findings on the carrier waiver issue. The claimant appeals these adverse determinations on evidentiary sufficiency grounds. The self-insured has filed a response, urging the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant our affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The evidence essential to this decision was set out in our previous decision and need not be repeated here. Suffice to say that the hearing officer felt that the evidence provided by the testimony of the claimant’s supervisor and the medical records was the more credible on the issues of injury, timely notice, and disability. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)), and, as the trier of fact, resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence (Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ)). We are satisfied that the findings relating to these issues are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Pool v. Ford Motor Company, 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951).
Concerning the carrier waiver issue, with the agreement of the parties, the hearing officer stated at the hearing that he would obtain the TWCC-21 from the Commission’s records with the Commission’s date-received stamp on it and include a copy in the evidence since the copy introduced by the claimant did not bear the Commission’s stamp. However, the hearing record did not contain such an exhibit and the hearing officer’s Decision and Order contained no discussion of the evidence on this issue nor any finding on the issue beyond the finding that the self-insured had adequately and timely disputed the claimed injury by filing a TWCC-21 with the Commission on November 8, 2000. In his remand decision the hearing officer states that a date-received stamped copy of the TWCC-21 could not be located in the Commission’s claim file; that the hearing officer reviewed the Commission’s computer records and determined that the TWCC-21 dated November 3, 2001, was filed with the Commission on November 8, 2001; and that the parties were advised that printouts of those records would be included in the hearing record as Hearing Officer Exhibit No. 3. The hearing officer also honored the parties’ requests that the briefs they had filed with the Appeals Panel be included in the record as hearing officer exhibits.
The TWCC-21 stated as follows, concerning the grounds for dispute:
Carrier disputes compensability of entire claim. Any disability or inability to work is not a direct result of an on the job injury. No good cause has been shown and no documentation exists to substantiate an alleged injury occurred in the course and scope of employment. The alleged injury was not reported within 30 days in accordance with Texas Labor Code 409.001, carrier is relieved of any liability per Texas Labor Code 409.002.
The hearing officer has found that the self-insured first received written notice of the claimed injury on ___________; that the carrier filed a TWCC-21 with the Commission on November 8, 2000, and the self-insured disputed the claimed injury within 60 days of receiving written notice of the claimed injury; and that the plain language used by the self-insured in its reason for dispute provided a clear, full, and complete statement of its grounds for refusal to pay benefits. Based on these findings, the hearing officer has concluded that the self-insured did not waive the right to dispute compensability by failure to timely and adequately file a dispute pursuant to Sections 409.021 and 409.022.
Again, we are satisfied that these findings are sufficiently supported by the evidence under out standard of review. In re King’s Estate, supra. Further, the hearing officer quite correctly cites authority in his remand decision for his declining to revisit the Appeals Panel decisions concerning the current applicability of the decision in Downs v. Continental Casualty Company, 32 S. W. 3d 260 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2000, pet. filed). Finally, we find the claimant’s complaint about the hearing officer’s resort to the Commission’s computer records to verify the date the TWCC-21 was received by the Commission to be disingenuous at best given that the claimant had the burden of proof, introduced an unstamped copy, and agreed at the hearing to the hearing officer’s looking in the Commission file for a stamped copy.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a self-insured governmental entity) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge