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 January 23, 2002. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) had not sustained a repetitive trauma injury on ______________ (all dates are 2001 unless otherwise noted), and that the claimant did not have any disability.
The claimant appeals, contending that the hearing officer erred in her findings; asserts that two doctors had diagnosed a neck injury; and requests that we “reform” the hearing officer’s decision. The respondent (self-insured) responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
We have reviewed the complained-of determinations and conclude that the issues involved fact questions for the hearing officer. Many of the documents, and the claimant’s testimony, give differing dates of injury, including _________ and _________, as well as _________, and differing mechanisms of injury such as “stepping into a truck and hit her head on the door frame,” holding a sun roof, and undefined repetitive traumatic activities. The hearing officer commented that the claimant’s “testimony was confusing to follow in that she jumped back and forth from a date of _________, 2001 to ______________, with no adequate explanation.” The claimant, in her appeal, cites a medical report which indicates an “injury to her cervico cranial regio…..s a result of her repetitive job activities,” but that report indicates a _________ date of injury. In any event, it is the hearing officer, as the finder of fact, who determines what facts have been established and who resolves conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). The hearing officer did so and we conclude that her determinations 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).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a certified self-insured) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C.T. CORPORATION SYSTEMS
350 N. ST. PAUL
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge