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. With respect to the issues before her, the hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable injury of __________, did not include an injury to the neck. In his appeal, the claimant asserts that that determination is against the great weight of the evidence and points out how he sustained a repetitive trauma injury to his neck. In its response to the claimant’s appeal, the respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). The claimant argues on appeal that the injury to his neck resulted from repetitive heavy lifting. During the CCH, he asserted specific injuries. The evidence in this case reflected early confusion on the part of the claimant as to the circumstances and date of any injury. However, the carrier accepted an injury of right wrist carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Later objective testing showed no evidence of CTS, and cervical radiculopathy was found. There are conflicting medical opinions as to the cause. We would caution 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).
In this case, the claimant’s attorney himself acknowledged in closing argument the confusion in the record. The hearing officer resolved the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence against the claimant and she was acting within her role as the fact finder in determining that the claimant did not sustain his burden of proof. Nothing in our review of the record indicates that the challenged determination is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to disturb that determination on appeal. Pool v. Ford Motor Company, 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986); Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN MANUFACTURES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge