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 27, 2004. The hearing officer determined that the ________________, compensable injury of appellant (claimant) does not extend to include a herniated disc at C5-6, bilateral median nerve entrapment syndrome, and/or a disc bulge at L4-5 and L5-S1. Claimant appealed these determinations on sufficiency grounds. Respondent (carrier) responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
DECISION
We affirm.
We have reviewed the complained-of determination regarding extent of injury and conclude that the issue involved a fact question for the hearing officer. The hearing officer reviewed the record and decided what facts were established. It does not appear that the hearing officer gave presumptive weight to the designated doctor regarding extent of injury. It also does not appear that the hearing officer improperly considered any evidence not presented at the hearing. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determination is supported by the record and is 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 AMCOMP ASSURANCE CORPORATION and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
701 BRAZOS STREET, SUITE 1050
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Judy L. S. Barnes
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge