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 April 6, 2000. The hearing officer determined that the respondent’s (claimant) injury of __________, extends to an injury to the cervical spine; and that the appellant (carrier) did not waive its right to contest compensability of the claimed injury. The carrier appeals the extent-of-injury determination, urging that it is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and/or is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The claimant replies that the hearing officer’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence and should be affirmed. The issue of waiver of the cervical spine injury has not been appealed and has become final. Section 410.169.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant worked for the employer as a physical therapy technician. On __________, the claimant sustained a compensable injury to her lower back when she was transferring a patient weighing over 200 pounds from a chair to a bed, the patient began to fall, and she caught the patient with her arms. The claimant testified that her entire back hurt, from her buttocks to her neck, and she attributed the pain to her lumbar spine. On September 16, 1997, Dr. L performed a lumbar fusion from L4-S1 with instrumentation and a bone stimulator.
The claimant returned to work in January 1998 as a receptionist. According to the claimant, she had continual neck pain following the injury, but did not know that she had sustained a neck injury. The claimant said that after returning to work, her neck was stiff and she had headaches. The claimant testified that her neck started popping in June 1998 and she complained of neck pain to Dr. L. On October 21, 1998, the claimant’s bone stimulator was removed. Following a cervical MRI and myelogram, Dr. L diagnosed C4-7 disc disease with root compression and recommended spinal surgery.
Dr. L’s medical records first document complaints of neck pain in December 1998. In a letter dated May 3, 1999, Dr. L states that the claimant’s Aneck pain was very secondary until she had treatment and surgery for her back pain which has, for the most part, resolved. Dr. L causally relates the claimant’s neck injury to the __________, injury, and states that the claimant had an Aaggravation of her persistent neck injury since she returned to work.
The carrier presented the medical report of Dr. C, who states that the claimant’s neck was not injured at the time of her low back injury. The carrier asserts that based on Dr. C’s report, the passage of time before a neck injury was documented, and the claimant’s Employee’s Notice of Injury or Occupational Disease & Claim for Compensation (TWCC-41), the claimant’s neck injury did not arise from the __________, injury.
The claimant had the burden to prove the extent of her compensable injury. Section 410.165(a) provides that the hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence as well as of the weight and credibility that is to be given the evidence. When reviewing a hearing officer’s decision for factual sufficiency of the evidence, we will reverse such decision only if it is so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer determined that the claimant’s compensable injury of __________, extends to and includes an injury to the claimant’s cervical spine. In so determining, the hearing officer made findings of fact that as a result of the claimant’s modified duty, her cervical condition became symptomatic; and that the claimant’s modified work duties aggravated her preexisting neck condition. Although the hearing officer used the words Aaggravated her preexisting neck condition we do not interpret this to mean that the claimant sustained a new injury based on his finding that the claimant’s condition Abecame symptomatic. The mere recurrence or remanifestation of symptoms of an old injury or condition does not automatically equate to a new compensable injury. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 962641, decided January 29, 1997. The hearing officer considered the conflicting evidence and resolved the issue in favor of the claimant. We conclude that the hearing officer’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence and that it is not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain, supra;Pool, supra.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
Dorian E. Ramirez – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Tommy W. Lueders – Appeals Judge