Following a contested case hearing held on November 1, 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 appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on __________, and that she therefore did not have disability. The claimant has requested our review of these adverse determinations for evidentiary sufficiency. The respondent (carrier) urges in its response that the evidence is sufficient to support the challenged determinations.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant testified that on __________, while working as an airline flight attendant, the airplane she was on made a very hard landing; that she was strapped into a jump seat during the landing; and that when she released the shoulder harnesses and stood up she felt “a pulling” in her low back. She also stated that she was pregnant at the time and that soon thereafter began experiencing lower abdominal cramping, which resolved. The claimant introduced the statements of two coworkers, who stated that the landing was the hardest they had ever experienced. The statement of the pilot who made the landing described it as “less than average” in terms of smoothness but “not an excessive landing” and said there was “no massive drop in back” and that the landing should not have caused injury. The claimant’s obstetrician opined that the back pain the claimant experienced was “due to her injuries and not due to her pregnancy.” The claimant said she was laid off on September 24, 2001.
In her appeal, the claimant states that because the hearing officer found that the claimant was furthering the affairs of her employer while sitting in a jump seat, “the injury claimed while doing this activity, without any conflicting evidence to the contrary, should be presumed compensable.”
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 true corporate name of the carrier is INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, the name and address of the carrier’s registered agent for service of process is
TIM KELLY
AIG, 675 BERING, 3RD FLOOR
HOUSTON, TX 77057.
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge