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 10, 2001. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on __________; that the respondent (self-insured) is relieved from liability because of the claimant’s failure to timely report her injury to her employer; that the claimant is not barred from pursuing workers’ compensation benefits because of an election to receive benefits under a group health insurance policy; and that the claimant did not have disability. On appeal, the claimant contends that the determinations that she did not sustain a compensable injury, did not timely report her injury and did not have disability are against the great weight of the evidence. In its response, the self-insured urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant had the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she sustained a compensable injury on __________, and thereafter had disability and these issues presented the hearing officer with questions of fact to resolve. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)) and resolves conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Co. of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, 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. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 224 S.W.2d 660 (1951). We are satisfied that the evidence sufficiently supports the hearing officer’s determinations that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury and, consequently, did not have disability.
Section 409.001 requires that an employee, or a person acting on the employee’s behalf, shall notify the employer of an injury not later than the 30th day after the date on which the injury occurs. Failure to do so, absent a showing of good cause or actual knowledge of the injury by the employer, relieves the carrier and employer of liability for the payment of benefits for the injury. Section 409.002. The claimant testified that she reported the injury to her supervisor on the day it occurred. The supervisor testified that the claimant merely notified him that she had back pain, but did not indicate that the injury was work-related. Whether, and, if so, when, notice is given is a question of fact for the hearing officer to decide. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93761, decided October 4, 1993. The hearing officer, after considering all of the conflicting evidence, found that the claimant did not notify her employer of the claimed work-related injury within 30 days and did not have good cause for her failure to do so. We find there was sufficient evidence to support the determination of the hearing officer that the carrier is relieved from liability under Section 409.002 because of the claimant’s failure to timely notify her employer pursuant to Section 409.001.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the self-insured is (SELF-INSURED) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 N. ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge