This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on October 24, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on ___________, and had disability from February 15 through October 24, 2001. The appellant (carrier) appealed on sufficiency grounds and argued that the hearing officer erred in not specifically defining the claimant’s compensable injury. There is no response from the claimant in the record.
DECISION
Affirmed, as modified.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant sustained a compensable injury and resultant disability. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence and resolves the conflicts and the facts established therein. Section 410.165(a). The claimant had the burden to prove that he sustained an injury during the course and scope of his employment. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). Conflicting evidence was presented at the CCH. As a general rule, in workers’ compensation cases the issues of injury and disability may be established by the testimony of the claimant alone. Houston General Insurance Company v. Pegues, 514 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1974, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The hearing officer found that the claimant sustained a compensable injury during the course and scope of his employment on ___________, and that he had disability from February 15 through October 24, 2001.
The record indicates that the hearing officer resolved only whether the claimant sustained a compensable lumbar spine injury and the medical evidence, as well as the claimant’s testimony, indicates that he did. The hearing officer’s decision is modified to read that the claimant sustained at least a compensable injury to the lumbar spine. The extent of the injury was not an issue before this hearing officer and has not been adjudicated. The hearing officer’s decision 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).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed as modified.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Terri Kay Oliver – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge