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 August 25, 2003. With respect to the issues before her, the hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable repetitive trauma injury; that the date of injury is _____________; and that the claimant timely reported her injury to her employer in accordance with Section 409.001. In its appeal, the appellant (carrier) asserts error in each of those determinations. In her response to the carrier’s appeal, the claimant urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant sustained a compensable repetitive trauma injury and that the date of injury is _____________. Those issues presented questions of fact 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 trier of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and decides what facts the evidence has established. Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The hearing officer was persuaded that the claimant sustained her burden of proving that she sustained an injury as a result of performing repetitive, physically traumatic activities in the course and scope of her employment and in demonstrating that the date she knew or should have known that her injury might be related to her work was _____________. The factors emphasized by the carrier in challenging the hearing officer’s injury and date-of-injury determinations 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 determinations are 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 those determinations on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
The carrier’s challenge to the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant timely reported her injury to her employer is dependent upon the success of its argument that the date of injury was in December 2002. Given our affirmance of the date-of-injury determination, we likewise affirm the determination that the claimant timely reported her injury to her employer.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
LEO F. MALO
12222 MERIT DRIVE, SUITE 700
DALLAS, TEXAS 75251.
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge