Following a contested case hearing held on October 22, 2001, pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act), the hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by determining that the respondent (claimant) sustained a repetitive trauma injury on ____________; that this injury extends to the right wrist and right elbow but not to the right shoulder; that the claimant had disability from May 31, 2001, to the date of the hearing; and that the income the claimant received from the employer beginning on May 31, 2001, and continuing through the date of hearing is considered post-injury earnings under Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 129.2 (Rule 129.2). The appellant (self-insured) has requested review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the hearing officer’s findings concerning the repetitive trauma injury and the extent of the injury to the right wrist and elbow, and disability. The claimant’s response urges the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant our affirmance of the challenged findings. The determinations that the claimant’s injury does not extend to include an injury to her right shoulder and that the income she received from the employer from May 31, 2001, through the hearing date is considered post-injury earnings under Rule 129.2 have not been appealed and have become final. Section 410.169.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant testified that for four and one-half years she worked for the self-insured as an account representative; that her duties throughout her eight-hour workday, excepting a lunch period and two 15-minute breaks, consisted of answering incoming telephone calls and entering data into the computer using the mouse and keyboard; and that on ____________, while working, her right elbow became swollen and she had pain in the wrist area, which radiated up her right arm. She said that she reported this condition to her manager that day and the next day saw a doctor who diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome and tendinitis. The claimant agreed on cross-examination that she averaged 42 telephone calls per day. She also described how quickly she had to do her work to meet the employer’s transaction time criteria. As she put it, “I’m constantly typing.” The claimant further indicated that she had been off work since May 31, 2001, and that the doctor was returning her to work the day after the hearing.
The claimant had the burden to prove that she sustained the claimed injury and that she 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 carrier’s true corporate name is (SELF-INSURED), a certified self-insured, and the name and address of the carrier’s registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TX 75201.
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge