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 March 31, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable repetitive trauma injury; that the date of the injury is _____________; and that the claimant timely notified her employer of the injury. The appellant (carrier) appeals these determinations. The claimant urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The disputed issues in this case involved factual questions for the hearing officer to resolve. 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. The hearing officer was persuaded by the evidence that the claimant’s work activities were sufficiently repetitive to cause right carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS); that on _____________, the claimant knew or should have known that the CTS may have been related to her employment; and that she gave timely notice of the injury to her employer. Contrary to the carrier’s argument on appeal, expert medical evidence is not necessary to establish a causal connection between a claimant’s work and CTS. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92083, decided April 16, 1992 (citing Houston Independent School District v. Harrison, 774 S.W.2d 298 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ); see also, Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 951917, decided December 28, 1995. However, in the present case, in addition to the claimant’s testimony, there is a medical record in evidence wherein the doctor opines that her condition “is related to her work activities of computer use and computer-assisted design.” Nothing in our review of the record indicates that the hearing officer’s decision is 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).
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is HARTFORD 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.
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge