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 July 23, 2001. He determined that the compensable injury sustained by the respondent (claimant) on ____________, extends to and includes injury to the claimant’s mouth/teeth. Appellant (carrier) expresses disagreement with the hearing officer’s entire decision, contending that the findings of fact and conclusions of law are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The appeals file contains no response from claimant.
DECISION
We affirm.
Carrier contends the hearing officer erred in determining that the compensable injury extended to and included an injury to claimant’s teeth/mouth. Extent or scope of injury is a question of fact for the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93613, decided August 24, 1993. The hearing officer explained in his discussion of the evidence that although a report submitted by the claimant’s dentist does not establish within reasonable medical probability that the fractured tooth resulted from the compensable injury,
the doctor’s opinion as to possible causation, the mechanism of injury, the presence of blood in the claimant’s mouth immediately after the blow, and the onset of problems with the tooth within a short period of time lead the hearing officer to believe that the fracture of the tooth is a result of the incident which gave rise to the neck and head injuries.
Injury may be proven by the testimony of the claimant alone, and medical or expert evidence is not required to establish that particular conduct resulted in the claimed injury, except in those cases where the subject is so technical in nature that a fact finder lacks the ability from common experience and knowledge to find a causal connection as a matter of reasonable medical probability. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93560, decided on August 19, 1993, and Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92598, decided December 23, 1992. Ordinary trauma can often be established as the cause of an injury from the testimony of a claimant, who actually experiences, and is aware of, the trauma. In the present case, in addition to the reports from claimant’s dentist, there is testimony from claimant connecting the compensable injury to his problems with his mouth and teeth. We are satisfied that the evidence presented was sufficient to enable the hearing officer to understand the causal connection between the injury and claimant’s problems with his teeth and mouth and to support his determination relating to extent of injury.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 N. ST. PAUL ST.
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Judy L. S. Barnes
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge