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 25, 2001. The hearing officer determined that (1) the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on ___________; (2) the claimant had disability from ___________, through August 4, 2001; and (3) the claimant was not intoxicated at the time of his injury, and the appellant (carrier) is not relieved from liability for this claim. The carrier appeals the determinations on factual and legal grounds. No response was filed.
DECISION
Affirmed.
INTOXICATION
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant was not intoxicated at the time of his injury and the carrier is not relieved from liability for this claim. The carrier asserts that the hearing officer erred in failing to shift the burden of proof to the claimant, after the carrier entered evidence showing that the claimant tested positive for marijuana metabolites. The carrier references language contained in the “Statement of the Evidence” portion of the decision and order, in support of its assertion. In the “Statement of the Evidence,” the hearing officer describes the relevant evidence with regard to intoxication and states “Claimant has established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that he had normal control of his mental and physical faculties at the time of the injury.” While the “Statement of the Evidence” is not a model of clarity in terms of the shifting burden, we believe a fair reading of the hearing officer’s decision in its entirety reflects that he properly shifted the burden to claimant to prove that he was not intoxicated at the time of injury. The carrier further asserts that the hearing officer’s intoxication determination is not supported by the evidence. Upon reviewing the record, we cannot conclude that the hearing officer’s determination is 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 had disability from ___________, through August 4, 2001, notwithstanding the claimant’s termination of employment and planned vacation. In view of the medical records and the claimant’s testimony that he could not work for the stated period due to his compensable injury, we cannot conclude that the hearing officer’s disability determination is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain, supra.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the carrier is AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C.T. CORPORATION
350 N. ST. PAUL
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge