This appeal after remand 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 July 25, 2001. The hearing officer determined that appellant/cross-respondent (claimant) sustained an injury in the course and scope of employment and timely reported the injury, but that she did not have disability. Claimant appealed the disability determination on sufficiency grounds. Respondent/cross-appellant (carrier) responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the disability determination. In a cross-appeal, carrier appealed the injury and timely notice determinations on sufficiency grounds. Claimant responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm these complained-of determinations. The Appeals Panel affirmed the injury and disability determinations, but reversed the hearing officer’s determination regarding timely notice. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 011947, decided October 1, 2001. The Appeals Panel noted that the hearing officer had found that the employer had notice of the injury on __________, when she found it had received a hospital bill that indicated it was for a work-related injury. In remanding, the Appeals Panel stated:
Even if the hearing officer found that employer received this bill on __________, if claimant then denied that the injury was work related, it cannot be said that employer had notice of the injury. We must remand this case for the hearing officer to reconsider the timely notice issue based on the record. The hearing officer should make fact findings regarding whether, when confronted with the bill, claimant denied that the injury was work related.
No hearing on remand was held. In a decision on remand, the hearing officer stated that when claimant was confronted with the bill by employer, she denied that she had sustained a compensable injury. The hearing officer said this “negated” any possible notice to the employer. Claimant again appeals, contending that she timely reported her injury to a supervisor. Carrier responds that the evidence supports the hearing officer’s determination. In its cross-appeal, carrier contends that the hearing officer erred in determining that, on __________, employer received a bill stating that claimant sustained a work-related injury. The file does not contain a response from claimant.
DECISION
We affirm.
We reviewed the complained-of determinations regarding whether claimant reported an injury to a supervisor; whether employer received a medical bill on __________; whether claimant denied she had sustained a work-related injury when confronted; and whether there was timely notice of injury, and conclude that the issues involved fact questions for the hearing officer. The hearing officer reviewed the record and decided what facts were established. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations are 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, 176 (Tex. 1986). Given the fact that there was no timely notice of injury, we note that carrier is not liable for benefits in this case.
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is UTICA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
RICHARD A. MAYER
11910 GREENVILLE AVENUE, SUITE 600
DALLAS, TEXAS 75243-9332.
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge