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 November 2, 2001. With regard to the four issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) had sustained a repetitive trauma injury, that the date of the claimed injury pursuant to Section 408.007 was “__________,” that the respondent (carrier) is relieved of liability under Section 409.002 because the claimant failed to timely notify her employer of the claimed injury, and that because the claimant did not have a compensable injury the claimant did not have disability. The issue that the claimant sustained a repetitive trauma injury has not been appealed.
The claimant appeals, asserting that the hearing officer failed to give sufficient “weight or credibility” to her testimony; that the date of injury should be __________; and citing various Appeals Panel decisions for the proposition that injury and disability may be established by the claimant’s testimony alone. The carrier responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant was employed as a “processor” by an insurance company doing considerable keyboarding activities. The claimant testified that in __________, she began to have symptoms of numbness and tingling in her right hand and wrist. The claimant contends that __________, is the date that she knew or should have known that the injury may be related to her employment because “that was the first day that she was absent from work.” The claimant went to a health center on September 5, 2000; apparently, for conditions unrelated to her claimed injury. The claimant was subsequently diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome by a clinic on September 25, 2000, when she was taken off work.
The hearing officer comments on some of the inconsistencies in determining the date of injury as defined in Section 408.007. There were also inconsistencies concerning when the claimant first reported a work-related injury to the employer. The claimant argues that the hearing officer failed to give sufficient weight to her testimony; however, we note that the hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility to be given to the evidence (Section 410.165(a)). The claimant also cites Appeals Panel decisions for the proposition that issues of injury and disability may be proven by the testimony of the claimant alone, which is true, but requires the hearing officer to find that testimony credible and persuasive, which the hearing officer found not to be the case here.
We have reviewed the complained-of determinations and conclude that the issues involved fact questions for the hearing officer. The hearing officer reviewed the record and decided what facts were established. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations are not 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).
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
JIM ADAMS, ATTORNEY
450 GEARS ROAD, SUITE 500
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77067.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge