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 May 17, 2001. The hearing officer determined that (1) the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease to her right wrist on __________; and (2) the claimant had disability from July 18, 2000, through the date of the hearing. The appellant (carrier) appealed the hearing officer’s determinations on sufficiency grounds. No response was filed.
DECISION
Affirmed.
Occupational Disease
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant sustained a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease to her right wrist. The claimant testified as to data input she performed for her employer in connection with her customer service work. The claimant had the burden to prove that she suffered damage or harm to the physical structure of the body occurring as a result of repetitious, physically traumatic activities that occurred over time and arose out of and in the course and scope of employment. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 992486, decided December 29, 1999; Sections 401.011(34) and (36). Conflicting evidence was presented with regard to this issue. 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)). The hearing officer’s determination is 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).
Disability
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant had disability from July 18, 2000, through the date of the hearing. In the absence of a specific argument with regard to disability, we read the carrier’s appeal to assert that the claimant did not have disability because she did not sustain a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease. Given our affirmance of the injury determination, we likewise affirm the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant had disability from July 18, 2000, through the date of the hearing.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge