Title: 

APD 021045

Significant Decision

Date: 

June 10, 2002

Issues: 

Extent of Injury

Table of Contents

APD 021045

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 April 9, 2002. With respect to the single issue before her, the hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable injury of _____________, did not extend to include left styloid tenosynovitis, left de Quervain’s syndrome, right ulnar nerve lesion, right carpal tunnel syndrome, and right cubital tunnel syndrome. In her appeal, the claimant essentially argues that the hearing officer’s extent-of-injury determination is against the great weight of the evidence. In its response to the claimant’s appeal, the respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.

DECISION

Affirmed.

The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant’s compensable injury did not extend to and include left styloid tenosynovitis, left de Quervain’s syndrome, right ulnar nerve lesion, right carpal tunnel syndrome, and right cubital tunnel syndrome. That issue presented a question of fact for the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93613, decided August 24, 1993. Section 410.165(a) provides that the hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. As the fact finder, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and determines what facts the evidence has established. Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co., 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). The hearing officer was acting within her province as the finder of fact in determining that the claimant did not sustain her burden of proving that her compensable injury extended to the claimed injuries at issue in this case. Nothing in our review of the record demonstrates that the hearing officer’s extent-of-injury determination is so against the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to disturb that determination on appeal. 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 TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is

CT CORPORATION SYSTEM

350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET

DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.

Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge

CONCUR:

Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge

Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge