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 14, 2004. The hearing officer determined that respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease; that the date of injury is ______________; that claimant had disability from August 25, 2003, through the date of the hearing; and that claimant timely reported her injury. Appellant (carrier) appealed these determinations on sufficiency grounds. Claimant responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
DECISION
We affirm.
We have reviewed the complained-of determinations and conclude that the issues involved fact questions for the hearing officer. The hearing officer reviewed the record and decided what facts were established. The hearing officer could find that claimant’s work was repetitive and traumatic. The hearing officer could also find from claimant’s testimony that she told her supervisor on June 3, 2003, that her wrist condition may be work related. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations regarding compensability, disability, and timely notice are supported by the record and 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.
According to information provided by carrier, the true corporate name of the insurance carrier is ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
LEE F. MALO
12222 MERIT DRIVE SUITE 700
DALLAS, TEXAS 75251.
Judy L. S. Barnes
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge