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 7, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on _______________, and that the claimant did not have disability. The claimant appealed, arguing essentially that the hearing officer erred in determining compensability and disability. The respondent (self-insured) did not file a response.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant testified that on _______________, he began his position as a truck assembler for the employer placing appliques to the rear side of sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), and that he injured his right shoulder from the constant placement of the appliques to the SUVs on the assembly line that first day. The claimant sought medical treatment with Dr. K on August 12, 2001, who diagnosed the claimant with a right shoulder sprain and took him off work. The medical records in evidence indicate that an MRI dated August 23, 2001, shows a “[p]robable tear of anterior rim of the glenoid labrum. Findings suggest a tear of the superior rim as well. Degenerative tendinopathy in the supraspinatus but no evidence of a rotator cuff tear.” The claimant testified that he was unable to work due to his shoulder injury from _______________, to October 29, 2001, when he was released to light duty.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that on _______________, the claimant was not injured and did not have damage or harm to the physical structure of his body, while furthering the business interest of his employer. An employee has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he sustained a compensable injury. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 94248, decided April 12, 1994. An “injury” is “damage or harm to the physical structure of the body and a disease or infection naturally resulting from the damage or harm.” Section 401.011(26). A “compensable injury” is “an injury that arises out of and in the course and scope of employment . . . .” Section 401.011(10). The hearing officer determined that the claimant failed to satisfy his burden of proof. The hearing officer was not persuaded by the claimant’s testimony or the medical records in evidence that the claimant sustained a compensable injury in the course and scope of employment on _______________.
Section 410.165(a) provides that the hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence as well as of the weight and credibility that is to be given the evidence. A claimant’s testimony alone may establish that an injury has occurred. Houston Independent School District v. Harrison, 744 S.W.2d 298, 299 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ). The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness. Taylor v. Lewis, 553 S.W.2d 153, 161 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). When reviewing a hearing officer’s decision for factual sufficiency of the evidence we will reverse the decision only if it is so contrary to 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 Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). Applying this standard, we find no grounds to reverse the factual findings of the hearing officer.
Because we are affirming the hearing officer’s decision that the claimant did not have a compensable injury, the claimant cannot, by definition in Section 401.011(16), have disability.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is SELF-INSURED and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C.T. CORPORATION SYSTEMS
350 N. ST. PAUL
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge