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 14, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) had not sustained a compensable injury in the form of an (repetitive trauma) occupational disease.
The claimant appealed generally on the sufficiency of the evidence, citing an Appeals Panel decision for the proposition that “constant repetition” is not necessary to prove a repetitive trauma and citing other evidence favorable to the claimant. The respondent (carrier) responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant was employed as a customer service representative for a telecommunications company. The claimant alleges a repetitive trauma injury to her left wrist and left shoulder due to the repetitive nature of her job duties. In dispute is how repetitive those duties were, how much keyboarding and typing was actually required, and how much time the claimant actually spent performing her customer service duties. The medical evidence was in conflict.
Section 401.011(36) defines a “repetitive trauma injury” as “damage or harm to the physical structure of the body occurring as the result of repetitious, physically traumatic activities that occur over time and arise out of and in the course and scope of employment.” The claimant had the burden to prove that she sustained an injury during the course and scope of her employment. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). The hearing officer found that the claimant’s job did not require extensive or prolonged repetitive keyboard activities and that she had not sustained a compensable injury. 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. We conclude that the hearing officer’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence and this it is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance 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 I
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Thomas A. Knapp
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Terri Kay Oliver – Appeals Judge