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 17, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable back injury on ___________, and did not have disability related to such injury. The claimant appeals, contending that he sustained an aggravation of a preexisting condition and that the hearing officer had failed to address his contentions of a shoulder injury. The respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
COMPENSABLE INJURY
The claimant asserted that she sustained compensable injuries to her low back and shoulders, including the scapular area, while operating a lathe for her employer. Whether the claimant sustained the alleged injuries on ___________, was a question of fact for the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 000074, decided February 25, 2000. Medical records show that the claimant had suffered a prior low back injury in 1995, but there was no evidence to show that the claimant had a history of shoulder problems. In view of the medical records, the hearing officer could find, as he did, that the claimant’s current back problems are a continuation of the ______ injury, rather than a new injury sustained on ___________. While the hearing officer did not specifically address the claimant’s alleged shoulder injury, the hearing officer considered the evidence and concluded that the claimant had not suffered damage to the physical structure of her body, which includes a determination regarding the claimant’s alleged shoulder injury. The hearing officer’s determination that the claimant had not sustained a compensable injury is not 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 (Tex. 1986).
DISABILITY
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not have disability. The 1989 Act requires the existence of a compensable injury as a prerequisite to a finding of disability. Section 401.011(16). Because the claimant was determined not to have sustained a compensable back injury, the hearing officer properly concluded that the claimant did not have disability related to such injury.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C.T. CORPORATION
350 NORTH ST. PAUL
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge