Title: 

APD 020831

Significant Decision

Date: 

May 31, 2002

Issues: 

Extent of Injury

Table of Contents

APD 020831

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 March 11, 2002. With regard to the issue before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant herein) compensable injury did not extend to include psychiatric/psychological conditions and depression or degenerative changes in the cervical spine and both shoulders and arms. The claimant appeals, contending that these determinations are contrary to the evidence. There is no response to the claimant’s request for review from the respondent (self-insured herein) in the appeal file.

DECISION

Finding sufficient evidence to support the decision of the hearing officer and no reversible error in the record, we affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.

It is undisputed that the claimant sustained a compensable injury in the form of a cervical spine injury. The issues before the hearing officer regarded the extent of the compensable injury. We have held that the question of extent of injury is a question of fact for the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93613, decided August 24, 1993. 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)). In view of the evidence presented, we cannot conclude that the hearing officer’s resolution of the extent of the claimant’s injury is 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). This is so even though, were we fact finders, we might have drawn other inferences and reached other conclusions. Salazar v. Hill, 551 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a self-insured governmental entity) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is

MANAGER

(ADDRESS)

(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).

Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge

CONCUR:

Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge

Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge