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 19, 2000. The hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on __________; and that the claimant had disability beginning June 11, 1999, and continuing through December 1, 1999. The appellant (carrier) appealed, asserting that the claimant failed to prove that she sustained a new back injury at work on __________, and that she simply continued to experience symptoms from her 1998 back injury paid for by another Workers’ compensation carrier. The carrier also contends that because the claimant did not sustain a new compensable injury, she did not have disability. The claimant maintained, in response, that her evidence is sufficient to support the hearing officer’s determinations.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant testified that in 1998 she sustained a work-related low back injury with pain radiating into her left leg; that in October 1998 she commenced employment with (employer), working as a driller and later working in the tool room; and that on __________, while working in the tool room with Ms. H boxing tools for shipment, she slid a box of tools across the floor, reached for a roll of tape, bent over to tape the box, and was unable to straighten up because of low back pain. The claimant said that a supervisor directed that she go to a hospital; that Ms. H drove her to the hospital because she was unable to drive; and that her treating doctor, Dr. G, took her off work and has not yet released her to return to work. As for her 1998 injury, the claimant stressed that the pain from that injury was on the left side of her back and radiated into her left hip area and down her left leg whereas the pain from the low back injury of __________, radiated down her right teg.
The claimant further testified that despite not being released to return to any type of work by her doctor, she began seeking employment as a cook with the (restaurant) around January 1, 2000, having been previously employed at that restaurant, and that she commenced employment there on February 18, 2000.
Ms. H testified that on __________, she was working with the claimant in the tool room; that she saw the claimant bend over to tape a box of tools she had shoved across the floor; and that she saw the claimant’s inability to straighten back up. She also said she drove the claimant to the hospital in the claimant’s van when the claimant proved unable to do so.
Dr. G wrote on December 19, 1999, that the claimant’s September 1998 injury resulted from a trip and fall incident at work and that she was treated for this injury, rehabilitated, and returned to full-duty work. Dr. G opined that the injury the claimant sustained on __________, which resulted in burning low back pain radiating down her right leg, “is without a doubt a new injury.”
The claimant had the burden to prove that she sustained the claimed injury and that she had disability as that term is defined in Section 401.011(16). Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 94248, decided April 12, 1994. The Appeals Panel has stated that in Workers’ compensation cases, the disputed issues of injury and disability can, generally, be established by the lay testimony of the claimant alone. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91124, decided February 12, 1992. However, the testimony of a claimant, as an interested party, only raises issues of fact for the hearing officer to resolve and is not binding on the hearing officer. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Burrell, 564 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)), resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence (Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ)), and determines what facts have been established from the conflicting evidence (St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Escalera, 385 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.)). As an appellate reviewing tribunal, the Appeals Panel will not disturb the challenged factual findings of a hearing officer unless they are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust and we do not find them so in this case. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); In re King=s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951).
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Alan C. Ernst – Appeals Judge
Judy L. Stephens – Appeals Judge