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 October 4, 2001. The record closed on October 10, 2001. With regard to the two issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a new compensable injury to his right shoulder on __________ (the 2000 injury), and that the claimant had disability from November 15, 2000, through the date of the CCH. The appellant (carrier) appeals, contending that the claimant had not sustained a new injury in 2000 and that the claimant’s shoulder complaints were a continuation of a compensable 1998 injury. The carrier also argues that because the claimant had not sustained a new compensable injury, the claimant could not have disability. The claimant responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant was employed as a route salesman delivering snack food products to retailers. The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable right shoulder injury in __________ “jerking up a box.” The carrier accepted liability for an impingement syndrome. The claimant’s treating doctor was Dr. G, who treated the claimant conservatively. An MRI was performed in July 1998, and the claimant subsequently had right shoulder surgery in September 1998 and January 1999. The claimant was determined to be at maximum medical improvement, an impairment rating was assessed, and the claimant returned to his preinjury job. It appears relatively undisputed that for the following 22 months the claimant required no medical attention for his shoulder injury. The claimant testified that on __________, while on his route, he pulled on a tightly wedged box and felt a pull in his right shoulder. The claimant attempted to return to Dr. G, who was unavailable, and so he saw Dr. M, another doctor in the same office. Dr. M’s diagnosis was similar to the diagnosis the claimant had in 1998. Another MRI was performed in December 2000. Although not listed as a witness in either of the hearing officer’s decisions, Dr. M testified at the CCH that, in his opinion, the claimant had sustained a new injury in November 2000. Dr. M said that he had reviewed both the 1998 and 2000 MRIs, that the MRIs do not show a reoccurrence, and that an impingement syndrome can resolve and later reoccur.
This case involves the interpretation of medical reports and the credibility of Dr. M’s testimony. The carrier relies on the reports of Dr. G, which gave a similar diagnosis for the 1998 injury as the claimant currently has for the 2000 injury. As the carrier stated, there is no dispute that the claimant has certain shoulder problems with the crux of the disagreement being whether the claimant’s 2000 injury was a new injury or the continuation of the _____ injury.
Whether a claimant has sustained a new injury or merely suffered a continuation of an original injury is a question of fact to be decided by the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 002433, decided November 28, 2000. The hearing officer’s decision is supported by the claimant’s testimony and medical documentation.
Regarding the issue of disability, in that we are affirming the hearing officer’s decision that the claimant sustained a new compensable injury on __________, the evidence also supports the decision that the claimant had disability, as defined by Section 401.011(16), for the period found by the hearing officer.
Upon review of the record submitted, we find no reversible error. We will not disturb the hearing officer’s determinations unless they are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951). We do not so find and, consequently, the decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TRANSCONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION
350 NORTH ST. PAUL
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge