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 October 25, 2000. She determined that the claimant did not sustain a new injury by way of aggravation on __________, but that a timely claim for compensation was filed with the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission. Each side has appealed the determination against it.
DECISION
We affirm.
The hearing officer has determined that the claimant’s back problems stemmed from his prior compensable back injury sustained in 1989. The claimant himself, in his appeal, recites the considerable evidence detailed in the hearing officer’s decision which supports this conclusion. The claimant, in his testimony, indicated that the carrier for his previous injury had taken the position that he sustained a new injury. This decision appears to lay that contention to rest.
We have reviewed the record and find ample support for the hearing officer’s decision. Furthermore, she is equally supported in her determination that the claimant filed a timely claim for compensation within the time frame set out in Section 409.004. In considering all the evidence in the record, we cannot agree that the findings of the hearing officer are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly wrong and unjust. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951). We affirm the decision and order on all points appealed.
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Kenneth A. Huchton – Appeals Judge
Judy L. Stephens – Appeals Judge