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 13, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on ______________, and that the claimant has not had disability. The claimant appealed and the respondent (carrier) responded.
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
COMPENSABLE INJURY ISSUE
Section 401.011(10) defines a “compensable injury” as “an injury that arises out of and in the course and scope of employment for which compensation is payable under this subtitle.” Section 401.011(26) defines “injury” as “damage or harm to the physical structure of the body or a disease or infection naturally resulting from the damage or harm . . . .” The claimant had the burden to prove that he was injured during the course and scope of his employment. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). Conflicting evidence was presented at the CCH. The hearing officer found that the claimant was involved in a minor work-related incident on ______________, and that the claimant’s work-related incident on ______________, did not cause damage or harm to the physical structure of his body. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the trier of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts in the evidence and determines what facts have been established. 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).
DISABILITY ISSUE
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant has not had disability because, without a compensable injury, the claimant would not have disability as defined by Section 401.011(16).
OTHER MATTERS
The comment made at the CCH regarding the treating doctor’s website, which the claimant complains about on appeal and attributes to the hearing officer, was made by the carrier’s attorney in closing argument and not by the hearing officer. It does not constitute grounds for reversal.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge