This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). Following a contested case hearing held on May 9, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by determining that the respondent’s (claimant) compensable injury of __________, does not include an injury to the cervical spine but does include an injury to the right shoulder. The appellant (self-insured) has requested our review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding as to the right shoulder. The claimant’s response urges the sufficiency of the evidence to support an affirmance. The hearing officer’s determination respecting the cervical spine has not been appealed and thus has become final by operation of law. Section 410.169.
DECISION
Affirmed as reformed.
We note at the outset that the hearing officer’s findings of fact are misnumbered in that she has identified two different findings as Finding of Fact No. 2. We reform the Decision and Order to reflect that the second Finding of Fact No. 2 is Finding of Fact No. 3 and that the remaining findings are renumbered accordingly.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant’s compensable injury of __________, includes an injury to her right shoulder. The parties stipulated that on __________, the claimant sustained a compensable injury in the form of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The hearing officer found that the medical evidence is sufficient to establish a causal relationship between the claimant’s right shoulder condition and her compensable injury and that she did sustain an injury to her right shoulder on __________, as a result of her repetitive work activities. The claimant, who was employed by the employer as an accounting clerk, testified that since her date of injury she had consistently complained of right shoulder pain to the several doctors who treated her. Dr. S noted on November 13, 1998, that the claimant had tenderness over the posterior interosseous nerve with radiation at the wrist and up into the shoulder. Dr. N wrote on March 30, 2001, that the claimant’s work-related repetitive trauma injuries to her upper extremities resulted in bilateral CTS and in right shoulder rotator cuff bursitis. An MRI report dated March 19, 2001, states the impression as subacromial impingement on the rotator cuff. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)) and, as the trier of fact, resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence including the medical evidence (Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ)). We are satisfied that the evidence sufficiently supports the challenged findings. 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, as reformed.
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge