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 December 15, 1999, and January 20, 2000. The hearing officer determined on the issues before her that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain an injury on __________, and did not have disability. Claimant appeals, urging that she presented credible evidence that she sustained an injury and that medical records showed a diagnosis of upper sprain/strain. Respondent (self-insured) responds that there is sufficient evidence to support the determinations of the hearing officer and asks that the decision be affirmed.
DECISION
Affirmed.
Claimant, a custodian for a school district, testified that she sustained an injury to her shoulder from emptying trash as a part of her duties. She testified that she felt pain at the time she emptied the trash on __________. She did not report any injury at the time and continued to work. Evidence established that she had been given duties in a new area with which she was very unhappy. According to the area supervisor and the claimant’s immediate supervisor, she requested a meeting about the job assignment on September 16, 1998. The job duties were not changed and the claimant reported that her arm was sore, and that although she wasn’t sure what caused it, it might have been from lifting a vacuum up a few stairs and also mentioned something about emptying trash. However, when asked, she stated she did not know what caused her shoulder/arm pain and “unknown” is listed on the claimant’s report of injury. She continued to work her regular duties through September 19, 1998, and sought medical treatment on September 20, 1998. The history in the report of examination indicates that claimant was injured on __________, and thought it was secondary “to lifting trash or some other ROM [range of motion] involved at work.” The assessment was right upper arm sprain/strain. She was taken off work and was returned to regular work on April 16, 1999.
The hearing officer found that the claimant failed to establish either a repetitive trauma or specific incident injury from her work. In this regard, it is apparent that the hearing officer did not find the claimant’s testimony to be convincing regarding the sustaining of an injury at work, given the varying accounts of how an injury occurred or might have occurred as the claim progressed. The hearing officer assesses credibility and weight of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)), and is not bound to accept a claimant’s testimony at face value and may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any given witness. Bullard v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, 609 S.W.2d 621 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1980, no writ); Taylor v. Lewis, 553 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The self-insured presented evidence that the claimant was disgruntled with a job assignment to a different area and had requested a meeting on that matter. The assignment was not changed and the claimant complained of a work-related injury but indicated unknown or indefinite causes. It was only later that the claimant steadfastly indicated that she was injured doing a specific act of emptying trash when she felt pain in her shoulder. Not finding the claimant’s testimony convincing, the hearing officer determined that the claimant failed to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. From our review of the record, we cannot conclude that the determinations of the hearing officer were so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust. Employers Casualty Company v. Hutchinson, 814 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. App.-Austin 1991, no writ). A compensable injury not being shown, there is no disability under the 1989 Act. Section 401.011(16).
Accordingly, the decision and order are affirmed.
Stark O. Sanders, Jr. – Chief Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Joe Sebesta – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge