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 27, 2001. On the sole issue, the hearing officer determined that the respondent’s (claimant) compensable injury of ____________, includes injuries to the head, neck, shoulders, upper back, lower back, left elbow, and ankles. The appellant (carrier) appeals the determination, arguing that the claimed injuries did not directly and naturally flow from the compensable injury. The claimant responds urging affirmance, and asserts that the carrier failed to timely dispute the follow-on injuries.
DECISION
Affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part.
It is undisputed that the claimant sustained a compensable injury to her right ankle on ____________, while unloading a box of jeans from a pallet at her place of employment. While lifting the box, the claimant’s right foot and ankle broke through the pallet as she was turning/twisting with the box. The claimant testified that on ____________, she injured her low back simultaneously with her right ankle as a result of the twisting motion. The medical evidence shows that the claimant complained of low back pain with a date of onset of ____________, and was diagnosed with lumbar facet syndrome and a soft tissue injury of the low back.
The claimant testified that she experienced instability in her right ankle, following her compensable injury, and that it would give way several times per week. On October 13, 2000, the claimant’s right ankle gave way while she stood on her porch at home, causing her to fall on the stairs leading to her porch. The claimant testified that she injured her head, neck, shoulders/upper back, left elbow, and left ankle in the fall. The medical records indicate that the claimant suffered contusions to the back of the head and left elbow, neck pain, upper back pain, lumbar pain, and internal derangement of the left ankle with possible adhesions and/or cartilage tearing and possible anterolateral impingement. The medical evidence does not explain how the claimant’s current injuries are related to the compensable injury other than to attribute these injuries to the fall.
Whether the compensable injury extended to include the claimed injuries is generally a question of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. In view of the claimant’s testimony that she injured her low back simultaneously with the compensable right ankle injury on ____________, and supporting medical evidence, the hearing officer could determine, as he did, that the compensable injury of ____________, included the low back. Such determination is 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 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer erred in determining that the compensable injury extended to include the remaining injuries. In Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 950524, decided May 19, 1995, we discussed the concept of follow-on injuries occasioned by falls related to compensable injuries. In that case, the claimant sustained a compensable knee injury; the knee later gave way, causing the claimant to fall into a wall injuring his neck and arm. In reviewing the hearing officer’s decision which found the subsequent injuries compensable, we rejected the concept that brings within the ambit of compensable injury every consequence that arguably may not have occurred “but for” the original compensable injury (citing Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 941575, decided January 5, 1995), and said that, though an injury may affect a person’s resistance, it will not mean that a subsequent injury outside the workplace is compensable (citing Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92553, decided November 30, 1992; Maryland Casualty Company v. Rogers, 86 S.W.2d 867 Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1935, writ ref’d)). We cited several cases where compensability of a subsequent or follow-on injury was upheld, noting that such cases involved a direct flow of events showing a causal relationship-e.g. a back condition caused by a changed or altered gait following a knee injury, and an injury resulting from physical therapy treatment for a compensable injury. The Appeals Panel reversed the hearing officer’s decision in Appeal No. 950524, supra, observing that the causal connection between the compensable knee injury and the alleged neck and arm injuries was too remote. We believe that the facts in the present case fall in line with Appeal No. 950524, supra, and the cases cited therein. Thus, the injuries to claimant’s head, neck, shoulders, upper back, left elbow, and left ankle are not a direct and natural result of the original compensable injury, and under the case law cited above, such injuries are not compensable.
As stated above, the claimant asserts in her response that the carrier failed to timely dispute extent of injury and, in the absence of a dispute with regard to the original injury, the carrier is liable for the claimed injuries. We note that a carrier does not waive the right to contest the issue of extent of injury by failing to contest compensability within 60 days of the date it receives written notice of additional claims of injury. Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 124.3(c) (Rule 124.3(c)).
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer with regard to the low back injury and reverse the decision and order with regard to the remaining injuries. We render a new decision that the claimant’s compensable injury includes the low back, but not the head, neck, shoulders, upper back, left elbow and left ankle.
The true corporate name of the carrier is AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS, SUITE 750
COMMODORE 1
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Edward Vilano
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge