This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on May 17, 2001. There were three issues at the hearing:
1. Did the respondent (claimant) sustain a compensable injury on __________?
2. Did such alleged injury extend to and include left carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), right-side nerve damage, and neck, thoracic, and lumbar injuries?
3. Did the claimant sustain disability?
With respect to the issues, the hearing officer determined that (1) the claimant sustained a compensable injury on __________; (2) the compensable injury extends to and includes her neck and her left CTS; and (3) the claimant has sustained disability since August 25, 2000. The findings on the extent of injury with respect to the right side nerve damage, thoracic and lumbar spine have not been appealed and have become final. The appellant (carrier) appeals, arguing that the hearing officer’s findings in regard to injury and disability are against the great weight of the evidence and that the hearing officer erred in her determination that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on __________. The claimant responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The carrier contends that the hearing officer erred in determining that the claimant sustained an occupational disease injury on __________, because the issue was whether the claimant sustained an injury on __________. The hearing officer explained her decision by indicating that the emphasis on this issue at the CCH was on the existence of an injury, not the date on which it was sustained. In Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92022, decided March 9, 1992, we observed that the alleged date of injury “does not have to be found by the hearing officer as the date of injury,” “but that the hearing officer could consider all the evidence in arriving at a date of injury.” See also Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91097, decided January 16, 1992. This opinion is consistent with our view that these proceedings are not governed by strict rules of pleading. Id. Timely notice was not an issue. Absent an assertion of prejudice made at the CCH, we find no merit in the carrier’s appeal on the basis that the claimant did not prove an injury on the date alleged. The hearing officer is charged with considering all the evidence to determine when injury occurs. Appeal No. 91097, July 23, 2001 supra.
The carrier also contends that the hearing officer’s decision is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. There was conflicting evidence offered on the issues. It was the province of the hearing officer to resolve any conflicting evidence. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). The question, under our standard of review, was whether the hearing officer’s determinations were 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). Applying this standard, we find sufficient evidence to support the hearing officer’s decision. Accordingly, the hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge