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 August 4, 2000. The record closed on September 29, 2000. The hearing officer determined that the _________, compensable injury of appellant (claimant) was not a producing cause of claimant’s cervical strain. Claimant appealed this determination on sufficiency grounds. He also complains of the assistance of the ombudsman. Respondent (carrier) responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
DECISION
We affirm.
Claimant contends the hearing officer erred in determining that his _________, compensable injury was not a producing cause of his cervical strain. Claimant asserts that: (1) the cervical complaints were not mentioned by his doctors because they were concentrating on his thoracic and lumbar injuries; (2) he was not able to obtain an appointment with the initial treating doctor, Dr. R, for three weeks and then Dr. R only briefly examined him; (3) the injury that claimant sustained was “violent”; and (4) claimant’s testimony supports a finding that he also injured his neck.
It is undisputed that claimant sustained a compensable thoracic and lumbar injury on _________, when he was bounced and jerked while suspended on a harness after a hoist on a rig malfunctioned. Claimant said he had pain all over, that his neck hurt from the beginning, and that he did tell his doctors about neck pain. Claimant said he was in a subsequent motor vehicle accident (MVA) in June 1998, but that this just “aggravated” his neck symptoms.
We have reviewed the record and evidence regarding the scope of the compensable injury. The hearing officer considered the evidence and claimant’s assertions and determined what facts were established. The hearing officer could consider the delay in the mentioning of cervical complaints and the evidence regarding the subsequent MVA in making his determinations. After reviewing the record we conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations are 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).
Claimant complains that the ombudsman did not adequately assist him at the hearing. However, the ombudsmen are available only to assist claimants and claimants are still responsible for the proper and adequate presentation of their cases. In any case, at the hearing, claimant discussed the assistance of the ombudsman and was very complimentary of the ombudsman’s knowledge. We perceive no reversible error.
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
Judy L. Stephens
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge