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 25, 2001. Regarding the restated disputed issue, the hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable right elbow injury did not extend to and include cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS) and that the claimant did not have disability.
The claimant appealed, basically contending insufficiency of the evidence and citing medical evidence in her favor and asserting that it outweighed evidence to the contrary. The respondent (carrier) responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant was a customer service manager, and the parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable right elbow injury on __________. The claimant “bumped” her right elbow while closing a metal door to a “baler.” How hard the bump was is in dispute. The carrier accepted liability for a right elbow contusion. At issue is whether the compensable injury extended to include CuTS.
The medical evidence was conflicting. The claimant’s doctor wrote that “[CuTS] is usually not caused by a bump to the elbow, but it is not inconceivable that this could be the case.” The carrier’s doctor wrote, “I cannot imagine any human bumping [her elbow] with such force as to injure the nerves coursing around the elbow structure.” The claimant contends that the carrier’s evidence is insufficient to contradict her medical evidence.
With the evidence in conflict, it is the hearing officer, as the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)), who 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)), and determines what facts have been established from the conflicting evidence. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Escalera, 385 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.). This is equally true of medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The Appeals Panel 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 and we do not find them so in this case. 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 decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
ROBERT PARNELL
8144 WALNUT HILL LANE
SUITE 1600
DALLAS, TEXAS 75231-4813.
Thomas A. Knapp
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge