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 12, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the issues before him by determining that (1) appellant/cross-respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on __________; (2) claimant did not have disability resulting from the injury sustained on __________; and (3) respondent/cross-appellant (carrier) is not relieved from liability for compensation under Section 406.032(1)(C). Claimant appealed on sufficiency grounds the hearing officer’s determination that she did not have disability. Carrier responded, urging affirmance of the disability determination. Carrier appealed on sufficiency grounds the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant sustained a compensable injury and that it is not relieved of liability under Section 406.032(1)(C). There is no response to carrier’s appeal in the file.
DECISION
We affirm.
It is undisputed that claimant was involved in an altercation with a coworker while at work on __________. It was claimant’s testimony that she had no prior conflicts with the coworker who assaulted her; that the attack was unprovoked; that she sustained injuries as a result of the attack; that she continued to work until her employment was terminated on June 19, 2001, for unrelated reasons; and that as a result of her injuries, she has been unable to work from June 19, 2001, through the date of the hearing. The earliest medical records submitted by claimant are dated July 3, 2001. The evidence further showed that the coworker who assaulted claimant was terminated for so doing. Carrier presented evidence that claimant had an ongoing bad relationship with the coworker and that claimant was in fact the aggressor in the incident.
Injury and disability are questions of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91065, decided December 16, 1991; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92147, decided May 29, 1992. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations that the claimant sustained an injury but that she did not have disability 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 have observed that whether there was a personal motivation to an assault that causes injury is a question of fact to be decided by the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 971051, decided July 21, 1997. There was conflicting evidence on this issue. The hearing officer’s determination that the assault did not arise out of personal reasons is not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, and we will not disturb it on appeal.
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
According to information provided by carrier, the true corporate name of the insurance carrier is FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICES COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge