Title: 

APD 031863

Significant Decision

Date: 

September 3, 2003

Issues: 

Extent of Injury

Table of Contents

APD 031863

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 June 19, 2003. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the compensable injury of _____________, includes an injury to the right elbow and right shoulder. The appellant (carrier) appeals, arguing that there was no evidence to support constant repetitive trauma to the respondent’s (claimant) right elbow and shoulder and that the claimant appears to be suffering from ordinary diseases of life. The claimant’s response was untimely and cannot be addressed or considered.

DECISION

Affirmed.

It is undisputed that the carrier has accepted a _____________, compensable injury to the claimant’s right wrist. At issue was whether the compensable injury extended to include an injury to the right elbow and right shoulder. Extent of injury is a question of fact. It was for the hearing officer, as the trier of fact, to resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and to determine what facts had been established. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). This is equally true regarding medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The factors emphasized by the carrier in challenging the hearing officer’s extent-of-injury determination on appeal are the same factors it emphasized at the hearing. The significance, if any, of those factors was a matter for the hearing officer in resolving the issues before her. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the challenged determination is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to reverse that determination on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).

We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.

The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS 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.

Margaret L. Turner

CONCUR:

Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge

Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge