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 February 18, 2003. The hearing officer determined that appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable occupational disease injury with a date of injury of ____________. Claimant appealed this determination on sufficiency grounds. Respondent self-insured (carrier) responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
DECISION
We affirm.
Claimant complains that the ombudsman did not offer certain documents into evidence. The ombudsman was at the hearing to assist claimant in the presentation of her case. However, it was still claimant’s responsibility to offer any evidence she wished to have the hearing officer consider. There is nothing in the record to indicate that claimant was prevented from presenting evidence. We perceive no error.
We have reviewed the complained-of determinations 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. He determined that claimant was not exposed to repetitive physically traumatic activities in her job duties. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determination in this regard and the determination that she did not sustain a compensable injury 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 (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).
Judy L. S. Barnes
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge