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 20, 2001. The appellant (carrier) appeals the hearing officer’s determinations that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on _______________; that the carrier is not relieved of liability for the compensable injury, because the injury did not occur while the claimant was in a state of intoxication; and that the claimant has disability as a result of the compensable injury from _______________, through the date of the hearing. The claimant responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
COMPENSABLE INJURY
There is sufficient evidence to support the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on _______________. The claimant testified that he sustained back injuries when he assisted with moving a CT scan machine while in the course and scope of his employment. Whether the claimant sustained the alleged injuries as a result of the work-related incident on _______________, was a question of fact for the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 000074, decided February 25, 2000. There was conflicting evidence presented with regard to this issue. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)) and, as the trier of fact, resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence, including the medical evidence (Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ)). The hearing officer could believe the claimant’s testimony and infer from the evidence that the claimant did sustain the claimed injuries on _______________. The hearing officer’s 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).
INTOXICATION
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the injury did not occur while the claimant was in a state of intoxication from the induction of a controlled substance. In the case of a controlled substance (Section 481.002, Health and Safety Code), as distinguished from alcohol, intoxication is the state of “not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties resulting from the voluntary introduction into the body of [the controlled substance.]” Section 401.013(a)(2). The sobriety of the injured employee at the time of the injury is presumed but when the carrier rebuts that presumption with probative evidence of intoxication, the burden shifts to the employee to prove that he or she was not intoxicated at the time of the injury. In view of the evidence presented, we cannot conclude that the hearing officer’s determination is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain, supra.
DISABILITY
There is sufficient evidence to support the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant has disability as a result of his compensable injury. The claimant testified that he has not been able to work as a result of his compensable injury. Although disability can be established by a claimant’s testimony alone, the testimony of the claimant, as an interested party, only raises an issue of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. Escamilla v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 499 S.W.2d 758 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1973, no writ). The claimant’s treating doctor also testified that the claimant is unable to work as a result of his compensable injury. Disability is a factual issue for the hearing officer. We find the hearing officer’s determination supported by the evidence and not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain, supra.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TEXAS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, an impaired carrier and the name and address of the registered agent for service of process is
MARVIN KELLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
T.P.C.I.G.A.
9120 BURNET ROAD
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78758.
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge