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 11, 2001. The hearing officer determined that appellant (claimant) is not entitled to lifetime income benefits (LIBs) based on the permanent loss of use of both feet at or above the ankle or based on an injury to the spine that resulted in permanent and complete paralysis of both legs. Claimant appealed these determinations on sufficiency grounds. Respondent (carrier) responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
DECISION
We affirm.
Claimant that contends the hearing officer erred in determining that he is not entitled to LIBs. Claimant asserts that he no longer has the substantial utility of his legs because of a combination of prior and current compensable injuries. The history portion of medical reports indicate that claimant has occasional weakness and cannot walk; that the doctors have not been able to pinpoint the cause of this; that claimant can get in and out of a bathtub when he is not having trouble with weakness; that he can drive for up to an hour at a time; and that he ambulates with a cane. Medical reports indicate that claimant does not have paralysis. The test for total loss of use is whether the member possesses any substantial utility as a member of the body or whether the condition of the injured member is such that it keeps the claimant from getting and keeping employment requiring the use of the member. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Seabolt, 361 S.W.2d 204, 206 (Tex. 1962). The question of whether a claimant has suffered a total loss of use of a member is generally a question of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 941065, decided September 21, 1994. Applying this standard, we find sufficient evidence to support the finding of the hearing officer that claimant has not lost substantial use of both feet at or above the ankle and that the condition of claimant’s legs is not such that he cannot get and keep employment requiring the use of both feet at or above the ankle.
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 also affirm the determination that claimant did not meet his burden to prove that he sustained an injury to the spine that results in permanent and complete paralysis of both arms, both legs, or one arm and one leg.
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
According to information provided by carrier, the true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TEXAS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, for EMPLOYERS’ CASUALTY COMPANY, an impaired carrier and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
MR. MARVIN KELLY, EXEC. DIR.
9120 BURNET ROAD
AUSTIN, TX 78758.
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge