On February 8, 2000, a contested case hearing (CCH) was held. The CCH was held under the provisions of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that appellant’s (claimant) date of injury for her claimed occupational disease was __________; that claimant did not sustain a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease; that claimant timely notified her employer of her claimed neck and shoulder injury; that claimant failed to timely notify her employer of her claimed wrist injury; that respondent (carrier) is relieved of liability for the claimed wrist injury under Section 409.002; and that claimant has not had disability because she did not sustain a compensable injury. Claimant appeals those determinations of the hearing officer that are adverse to her. Carrier requests affirmance. The hearing officer’s decision was mailed to claimant on February 14, 2000, and under Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 102.5(d) and 102.3(a)(3) (Rules 102.5(d) and 102.3(a)(3)), claimant is deemed to have received the decision on February 22, 2000. Claimant’s original appeal was timely filed with the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) on March 1, 2000, and will be considered. Claimant’s supplemental appeal was mailed to the Commission on March 15, 2000, and was not timely filed within the 15-day period for filing an appeal and will not be considered. Section 410.202 and Rule 143.3(c).
DECISION
Affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part.
Claimant began working for employer in April 1998. Claimant testified that she worked 40 hours a week, that she spent 90% of each workday doing data entry on a computer keyboard, that she also made hand-written reports, that she is right-handed, that she had to turn her head a lot while working on the computer, and that her chair at work had no arms. Claimant testified that as a result of repetitious work activities, she injured her neck and shoulders and developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Dr. W diagnosed claimant as having cervical radiculopathy on June 10, 1999. Cervical x-rays showed degenerative changes and osteophytes. Claimant testified that she was first aware that she had an occupational disease on __________, and that she reported a work-related neck and shoulder injury to employer on or about June 29, 1999. Claimant said that she has not worked since June 29, 1999, because of her claimed work injury. Dr. W wrote that claimant is unable to work. Claimant had an EMG done in September 1999. In October 1999, Dr. W wrote that claimant has bilateral CTS, right worse than left, and that her condition would be aggravated by typing and/or frequent hand manipulations. A physical therapist wrote in October 1999 that claimant has bilateral CTS caused by repetitive stress, such as working at a computer, and that claimant’s cervical pain was probably caused by poor sitting posture. Claimant had a right carpal tunnel release done in November 1999 and a left carpal tunnel release done in January 2000. NT, employer’s office manager, testified that claimant spent only a third of her workday typing at the computer and that the rest of the day claimant would perform other activities such as answering customer telephone calls or dispatching service technicians. Dr. H reviewed claimant’s medical records at carrier’s request and wrote in September 1999 that the claimant’s medical condition is not related to her employment but arises out of normal life activities.
The hearing officer determined that claimant’s date of injury under Section 408.007 was __________; that claimant did not sustain a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease; and that, because claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, claimant has not had disability. Without a compensable injury, claimant would not have disability as defined by Section 401.011(16). 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 conflicts in the evidence and determines what facts have been established. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations that the date of injury under Section 408.007 was __________; that claimant did not sustain a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease; and that claimant has not had disability because she did not sustain a compensable injury, are supported by sufficient evidence and are not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.
With regard to the notice issue, the hearing officer’s decision that claimant timely notified employer of her claimed neck and shoulder injury is not appealed. Claimant appeals the hearing officer’s decision that she did not timely notify employer of her wrist injury and that carrier is relieved of liability under Section 409.002 for the claimed wrist injury. The hearing officer found one date of injury for the claimed repetitive trauma injury to claimant’s neck, shoulders, and wrists. In Texas Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Bridges, 52 S.W.2d 1075 (Tex. Civ. App.-Eastland 1932, writ ref’d), the court stated that the statute requiring notice of the injury does not specify that the injury must be described in detail. The Appeals Panel has held that a claimant is not required to report the extent of injury to meet the statutory notice requirement in Section 409.001. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 950844, decided July 10, 1995. Because claimant did timely notify her employer of a claimed work-related repetitive trauma injury and was not required to report in detail the extent of the injury, we reverse that portion of the hearing officer’s decision that carrier is relieved of liability for the claimed wrist injury and hold that carrier is not relieved of liability for the claimed wrist injury under Section 409.002 because of a failure to timely report the injury. However, since we are affirming the hearing officer’s decision that claimant did not sustain a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease, carrier is not liable for Workers’ compensation benefits.
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision that claimant did not sustain a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease; that the date of injury under Section 408.007 was __________; and that claimant has not had disability. We reverse the hearing officer’s decision that carrier is relieved of liability for claimant’s claimed wrist injury under Section 409.002 because of a failure to timely report the injury and we render a decision that carrier is not relieved of liability for the claimed wrist injury under Section 409.002. Carrier is not liable for Workers’ compensation benefits because claimant did not sustain a compensable injury.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Joe Sebesta – Appeals Judge
Dorian E. Ramirez – Appeals Judge