This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on November 5, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the respondent’s (claimant) compensable injury of _____________, extends to and includes the diagnosed torn meniscus of the left knee and that the claimant has had disability from May 4, 2001, through the date of the CCH. The appellant (carrier) appealed and the claimant responded.
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
It is undisputed that the claimant sustained a compensable injury to her left knee on _____________. The hearing officer correctly placed the burden of proof on the claimant on the disputed issues of whether the compensable injury of _____________, extends to and includes the diagnosed torn meniscus of the left knee and whether the claimant has had disability resulting from the claimed injury. Conflicting evidence was presented on both issues and the hearing officer was evidently persuaded that the claimant met her burden of proof on those issues. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the finder of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts in the evidence and determines what facts have been established. The hearing officer found that the credible medical evidence established that the claimant’s current left knee tear stemmed from the compensable knee injury of _____________, and that due to the work injury, the claimant was unable to obtain and retain employment at wages equivalent to the claimant’s preinjury wage from May 4, 2001, through the present. The hearing officer’s determinations that the compensable injury of _____________, extends to and includes the diagnosed torn meniscus of the left knee and that the claimant has had disability, as defined by Section 401.011(16), from May 4, 2001, through the date of the CCH are supported by the claimant’s testimony and by the reports of the treating doctor. The hearing officer’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence and is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
Given the carrier’s contention that the claimant’s torn meniscus of the left knee resulted from a preexisting condition or preexisted her compensable injury, we do not find that the hearing officer erred in making a finding on “sole cause.” In Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 94428, decided May 26, 1994, the Appeals Panel noted that a carrier that wishes to assert that a preexisting condition is the sole cause of an incapacity has the burden of proving this, citing Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Page, 553 S.W.2d 98 (Tex. 1977). While the carrier presented the testimony of a doctor to support its contention, the claimant presented evidence to the contrary from her treating doctor. The hearing officer weighed the conflicting evidence and found that the evidence did not establish that the sole cause of the claimant’s current left knee problems stem from the preexisting problems. We do not find that the hearing officer erred in making that finding.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TEXAS HOSPITAL INSURANCE EXCHANGE and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
ROBERT LAWRENCE DION, PRESIDENT
6300 LA CALMA, SUITE 550
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78761.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Terri Kay Oliver – Appeals Judge