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 October 20, 2000. The hearing officer determined that appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury, that he did not have disability, and that he did not timely report his claimed injury to his employer. Claimant appealed these determinations on sufficiency grounds. Respondent (carrier) responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order. A determination in claimant’s favor regarding election of remedies was not appealed.
DECISION
We affirm.
Claimant contends the hearing officer erred in determining that he did not sustain a knee injury at work, that he did not have disability, and that he did not timely report his claimed injury. It is undisputed that claimant has a knee injury, but carrier disputed that claimant sustained a knee injury at work. Claimant testified that he hurt his right knee when he stepped off a ladder at work on __________. He said his knee did not “feel right,” he did not think much about it, and that he continued to work for two days. In his recorded statement, claimant said that, immediately after the injury, he reported it to Mr. S, Mr. C, and Mr. B. In transcribed statements, all three said claimant did not report a work-related injury to them. Mr. C, who supervised claimant, said he had been aware that claimant had prior knee problems and said that he had given claimant work where he did not have to climb ladders.
The applicable law and our standard of review are discussed in Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 002386, decided November 21, 2000. In this case, the hearing officer noted inconsistencies in the evidence and determined that claimant did not meet his burden of proof in this case. Claimant complains of details in the medical report of Dr. R and states that the medical evidence supports his assertion that he sustained a work-related knee injury. Claimant also contends that his supervisors had incentive to deny that he reported an injury because employer provides rewards where no injuries are sustained at work. However, the hearing officer reviewed the file, determined what weight to give to the evidence, and he decided what facts were established. We have reviewed the hearing officer’s determinations and we conclude that they 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 affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
Judy L. Stephens
CONCUR:
Kenneth A. Huchton – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge