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 October 17, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by concluding that the appellant/cross-respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on ___________, and had no disability.
In his appeal the claimant, argues that the hearing officer’s determinations regarding disability are not supported by the evidence.The appeal file does not contain a response from the respondent/cross-appellant (carrier). In its cross-appeal, the carrier contends that the hearing officer’s determination of compensability, is against the great weight of the evidence. The appeal file does not contain a response to the carrier’s cross-appeal from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant testified that he was employed as a labor helper for the employer. He testified that on ___________, he was bending tightening some pipe and when he stood up he felt pain in his back. He stated he continued to work that day but was given light duty. The claimant’s supervisor, Mr. GP testified that the claimant returned to regular duty on March 19, 2001. Mr. GP testified that on Friday, March 23, 2001, claimant told him his back continued to bother him and requested medical treatment. Mr. GP stated that he told the claimant that when he came to work on Monday, someone would take him to the clinic. It is undisputed that the claimant did not report to work on March 26, 2001, and was late to work on March 27, 2001. There was conflicting testimony regarding the reason for his absence. Mr. GP testified the claimant was terminated on March 27, 2001, because of his absenteeism. There was some evidence that the claimant had been involved in a physical altercation on March 24, 2001. The records reflect, and the claimant testified, that he first received medical treatment on March 28, 2001, when he went to see his treating doctor, Dr. R, a chiropractor.
The claimant had the burden to prove that he sustained the claimed injury and that he had disability as that term is defined in Section 401.011(16). Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 94248, decided April 12, 1994. The Appeals Panel has stated that in workers’ compensation cases, the disputed issues of injury and disability can, generally, be established by the lay testimony of the claimant alone. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91124, decided February 12, 1992. However, the testimony of a claimant, as an interested party, only raises issues of fact for the hearing officer to resolve and is not binding on the hearing officer. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Burrell, 564 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section
410.165(a)), 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.)). As an appellate-reviewing tribunal, 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. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951).
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is EMPLOYERS FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C.J. FIELDS
5910 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, SUITE 500
DALLAS, TEXAS 75206.
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge