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 November 5, 2002. The hearing officer determined that the respondent’s (claimant) compensable injury extends to “anxiety disorder, major depression, and [gastrointestinal] GI bleeding.”
The appellant (self-insured) appeals, contending that there is no medical opinion that the compensable injury caused the GI bleeding and that the claimant had significant psychological problems which caused the claimant’s anxiety and depression prior to the compensable injury. The file does not contain a response from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant, a medical records technician/management assistant, sustained a compensable injury when she tripped over a cabinet (akin to an open file drawer), hit her abdomen on a cabinet and fell to the floor. While there was no stipulation or agreement as to what was included in the compensable injury, it apparently involved a “contusion [to the] stomach,” a left knee injury, and a back injury. The claimant contends that the injury also includes “anxiety disorder, major depression, and GI bleeding.” The carrier at the CCH, and on appeal, breaks the claimant’s contention in two parts: (1) the GI bleeding and (2) the anxiety disorder and major depression.
Regarding the GI bleeding, the self-insured argues that the “record is simply devoid” of any documentation of causation. We disagree. Dr. B one of the treating doctors in a report dated October 17, 2002, states, among other things:
I feel her bleeding is directly related to her fall. This is evident by the immediate correlation with the fall. It is likely that she has/had a diverticulum, friable vessel in the colon or an area of angiodysplasia that bleed when traumatized. These entities are frequently not seen when colonoscopy is done several days after the event. It is my medical opinion that trauma to the abdomen can cause intestinal bleeding which is self limited.
The hearing officer’s determination on this point is supported by the evidence.
Regarding the anxiety and depression, the self-insured argues that the claimant had preexisting anxiety and depression evidenced by her testimony, a harassment suit that the claimant filed against the self-insured, financial problems and the effects of a prior 1995 low back injury, and that “none of the stress was from her [1999] work related injury.” While it is clear that the claimant had significant stressors from factors other than her present compensable injury, at least three mental health professionals, (a forensic psychiatrist, another psychiatrist, and a Ph.D. psychologist) all are of the opinion that her present mental and emotional problems “are directly associated with her chronic pain syndome which was the result of her . . . injury on __________.”
Although another fact finder might have reached a different conclusion on the same evidence, that alone is not a sound basis on which to reverse the hearing officer’s decision. Salazar, et al. v. Hill, 551 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). There was conflicting evidence presented at the hearing on the issues. The hearing officer weighed the credibility and inconsistencies in the evidence and the hearing officer’s determination on the issues is 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).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
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
COUNTY JUDGE
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge