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 regard to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant/cross-respondent (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on __________; that the claimant does not have disability; and that the claimant reported the claimed injury timely to the employer. The claimant appealed, arguing that the hearing officer erred in determining compensability and disability. The respondent/cross-appellant (carrier) appealed the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant reported a work-related incident to the employer within 30 days. Neither the claimant nor the carrier filed a response to the appeal or cross-appeal.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant testified that she was employed as an assistant manager for the employer’s retail store. She stated that on __________, she missed a step climbing down a step-ladder at work and fell to the ground injuring her right knee, right hip, and low back. She testified that she informed her supervisors that same evening that the injury occurred. The next day, __________, she sought medical treatment for headaches and vision problems, but did not complain of pain to her right knee, right hip, and low back. The claimant stated that she continued to work at the retail store until October 12, 2000, when she felt pain to her right hip, right knee, right shoulder, and low back. The claimant sought chiropractic treatment from Dr. D, her former employer, on October 20, 2000. The medical reports in evidence indicate that the claimant had a 3 to 4 millimeter disc herniation of the spinal cord. The following day, October 21, 2000, the claimant was involved in an automobile accident, injuring her neck and aggravating her hip area. The claimant stated that she was released to light-duty work. The claimant moved out of state to begin a new job on December 8, 2000, and was treated by an orthopedic surgeon for low back and left leg pain in January 2001. The claimant stated that she returned to Texas to begin another job on June 8, 2001. The claimant testified that she was unable to work from October 13, 2000, through June 8, 2001, because of the injury she sustained on __________.
The hearing officer determined that the work-related incident on __________, did not cause damage or harm to the physical structure of the claimant’s body. The hearing officer was not persuaded by the claimant’s testimony or the medical records in evidence that the claimant sustained a compensable injury. The hearing officer determined that the claimant’s inability to work, earning her preinjury wages, from October 13, 2000, through June 8, 2001, is not the result of a compensable injury. Since the claimant did not have a compensable injury, the claimant cannot, by definition in Section 401.011(16), have disability. The evidence sufficiently supports the hearing officer’s determinations regarding compensability and disability.
The hearing officer determined that the claimant reported a work-related incident within 30 days of __________. The claimant testified that she telephoned her supervisors the same evening she sustained her injury. The evidence sufficiently supports the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant reported timely her injury to her employer.
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 decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL ST.
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge