Title: 

APD 012027

Significant Decision

Date: 

October 15, 2001

Issues: 

Disabilty/Existence-Duration, Existence of Compensable Inj

Table of Contents

APD 012027

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 August 1, 2001. With regard to the disputed issues, the hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on__________, which injury caused the claimant to sustain disability from August 23 through September 28, 2000.

The appellant (carrier) appealed, arguing essentially that the hearing officer’s determinations are not supported by sufficient evidence, or, alternatively, are contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence regarding compensability and disability. The file does not contain a response from the claimant.

DECISION

Affirmed.

This case involves a chemical spill where the claimant sustained some chemical spill burns. There was conflicting evidence regarding what the claimant initially told his doctor, and the process of flushing pipes.

The evidence was in conflict and subject to differing interpretations. It is the hearing officer, as the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)), who resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence (Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ)), and determines what facts have been established from the conflicting evidence. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Escalera, 385 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.). This is equally true of medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The Appeals Panel will not disturb the challenged factual findings of a hearing officer unless they are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust and we do not find them so in this case. 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 hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.

The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is

CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY

800 BRAZOS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.

Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge

CONCUR:

Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge

Robert E. Lang

Appeals Panel

Manager/Judge