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 respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury to his left arm on __________, but did not sustain a neck injury on that date; that the appellant (carrier) waived its right to contest compensability by not timely filing its contest in accordance with Section 409.021; and that the claimant had disability, as a result of his compensable injury, from __________, through the date of the hearing. In its appeal, the carrier asserts error in each of those determinations. The appeal file does not contain a response to the carrier’s appeal from the claimant. The claimant also did not appeal the determination that his compensable injury does not include an injury to his neck.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant had the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he sustained a compensable injury on __________, and that issue presented the hearing officer with a question of fact to resolve. The carrier contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support the determination that the claimant sustained a compensable injury. Generally, injury and disability can be established by the claimant’s testimony alone, if believed by the hearing officer. Gee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 765 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. 1989). The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence pursuant to Section 410.165(a) and it is for the hearing officer to resolve such conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence as were present in this case. Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co., 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). The hearing officer resolves the conflicts and determines what facts the evidence has established. Our review of the record does not reveal that the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant sustained a compensable left arm injury 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 reverse that determination on appeal. 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).
The carrier also asserts error in the hearing officer’s determination that it waived its right to contest compensability pursuant to Section 409.021. The carrier emphasizes that the hearing officer did not make a specific finding as to when it receive written notice of the claimed injury; however, it appears from the hearing officer’s discussion that he found that the carrier received written notice of the injury on May 14, 2001. The carrier argues that this date is erroneous because that is the day that the employer completed the Employer’s First Report of Injury or Illness (TWCC-1) but there is no evidence of that the carrier received a copy of the TWCC-1 that day. The carrier’s argument in that regard may have been well-taken, had line 14 of its Payment of Compensation or Notice of Refused/Disputed Claim (TWCC-21), not acknowledged receipt of written notice of the injury on May 14, 2001. The parties stipulated that the TWCC-21 contesting compensability was filed with the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) on July 25, 2001. As such, the hearing officer properly determined that the carrier waived its right to contest compensability in that July 25, 2001, is more than 60 days after May 14, 2001, the date the carrier admitted it received written notice of the injury.
The carrier also argues that it did not waive its right to contest compensability in this case citing Continental Cas. Co. v. Williamson, 971 S.W2d 108 (Tex. App. -Tyler 1998, no writ). Because the hearing officer found, and we have affirmed, that the claimant sustained an injury in the course and scope of his employment, the Williamson decision has no application in this case.
The carrier’s challenge to the disability determination is dependent upon the success of its argument that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury. Given our affirmance of that determination, we likewise affirm the determination that the claimant had disability from __________, through the date of the hearing.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS, SUITE 750, COMMODORE 1
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge