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 18, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that respondent one’s (claimant) compensable injury of __________, is a producing cause of her current bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (BCTS); that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease on __________; and that the claimant has not had disability resulting from her claimed injury of __________. The Appellant (carrier one) appealed. No response was received from the claimant or respondent two (carrier two).
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
It is undisputed that the claimant sustained a compensable injury in the form of BCTS while working for employer one and that the date of injury was __________. Carrier one is the workers’ compensation insurer for employer one. Conflicting evidence was presented with regard to the issue of whether the claimant’s compensable injury of __________, is a producing cause of her current BCTS. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the finder of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts in the evidence and determines what facts have been established. The opinions of the treating doctor and the required medical examination (RME) doctor support the hearing officer’s decision that the claimant’s compensable injury of __________, is a producing cause of her current BCTS. The hearing officer’s determination on the producing cause issue is supported by sufficient evidence and is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
Conflicting evidence was also presented with regard to the issue of whether the claimant sustained a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease on __________. The hearing officer was apparently not persuaded that the claimant had an “injurious exposure” at employer two, as was contended by carrier one. The hearing officer’s determination that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease on __________, is supported by the opinions of the treating doctor and the RME doctor. The hearing officer’s determination on this issue is supported by sufficient evidence and is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain, supra.
Since the hearing officer determined that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on __________, he correctly concluded that the claimant has not had disability resulting from that claimed injury because, without a compensable injury, the claimant would not have disability as defined by Section 401.011(16).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of insurance carrier one is FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
PARKER W. RUSH
1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 4200
DALLAS, TEXAS 75202-2812.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier two is AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge