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 June 19, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the respondent’s (claimant) cervical injury of __________, extended to and included depression (major depressive disorder). The appellant (carrier) appeals and contends that this determination is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The claimant seeks affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer has set out the evidence in his decision. As he noted, the medical evidence in the case was conflicting. It is precisely this type of conflict that the hearing officer, as the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence under Section 410.165(a), is responsible for resolving. We observe that while chronology alone does not establish a causal connection between an accident and a later-diagnosed injury (Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 94231, decided April 8, 1994), neither does a delayed manifestation nor the failure to immediately mention an injury to a health care provider necessarily rule out a connection. See Texas Employers Insurance Company v. Stephenson, 496 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1973, no writ). Generally, lay testimony establishing a sequence of events which provides a strong, logically traceable connection between the event and the condition is sufficient proof of causation. Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729, 733 (Tex. 1984). The claimant explained how she continued to be in chronic pain, which ultimately affected her work and ability to get along with her coworkers. This, plus the medical evidence in the file supportive of her diagnosis and treatment for work-related depression, supports the hearing officer’s findings and conclusions.
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 therefore affirm the decision and order.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (carrier) and the name and address of it’s registered agent for service of process is
(Company)
(Address)
(City), Texas
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge