This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on January 24, 2003. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable repetitive trauma injury; that the date of injury was _____________; that the appellant (self-insured) is not relieved of liability under Section 409.002 because the claimant timely notified the self-insured of her injury pursuant to Section 409.001; and that the claimant had disability resulting from the compensable injury for the following periods: March 1 through March 13, 2002; March 16 through March 31, 2002; and June 5 through October 9, 2002. The self-insured appealed the hearing officer’s decision on all of the disputed issues. No response was received from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant had the burden to prove that she sustained a compensable injury, that she gave timely notice of injury to the self-insured, and that she has had disability. The claimant claimed that she sustained a repetitive trauma injury as a result of performing her work activities for the self-insured. Section 401.011(34) provides that an occupational disease includes a repetitive trauma injury, which is defined in Section 401.011(36). Section 408.007 provides that the date of injury for an occupational disease is the date on which the employee knew or should have known that the disease may be related to the employment. Section 409.001(a) provides that, if the injury is an occupational disease, an employee or a person acting on the employee’s behalf shall notify the employer of the employee of an injury not later than the 30th day after the date on which the employee knew or should have known that the injury may be related to the employment. Section 401.011(16) defines “disability” as “the inability because of a compensable injury to obtain and retain employment at wages equivalent to the preinjury wage.” Conflicting evidence was presented at the CCH. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the finder of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts in the evidence and determines what facts have been established from the evidence presented. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations on the disputed issues are supported by sufficient evidence and are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W. 2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
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
SA
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Robert W. Potts
CONCUR:
Daniel R. Barry – Appeals Judge
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge