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 12, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable (thoracic and lumbar spine) injury did not extend to or include a cervical spine injury.
The claimant appealed the adverse findings, citing evidence that supports his position. The respondent (carrier) responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant was employed as a maintenance supervisor for the employer apartment complex. On ___________, the claimant sustained a compensable mid and low back injury, first lifting a skimmer bucket from the pool and, later, carrying an extension ladder. The claimant was initially diagnosed with having “a syrinx at T1 to T3” which was eventually surgically corrected. A report dated October 19, 1999, from Dr. Z referenced “upper back” complaints and other early reports refer to “intrascapular pain” but do not specifically refer to the neck or cervical spine. The parties entered into a benefit review conference (BRC) agreement on February 17, 2000, in which the carrier accepted liability for a thoracic and lumbar spine injury. The claimant argues that that agreement does not exclude other injuries and the carrier argues by inference that the compensable injury excludes a cervical injury. It is relatively undisputed that cervical complaints, as such, are first mentioned in a letter dated May 12, 2000, from Dr. K to Dr. Z. A cervical MRI performed on August 18, 2001, arguably shows three cervical disk herniations. Dr. V, a Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) required medical doctor, in a report dated August 9, 2001, comments that since the claimant “was asymptomatic in this area prior to the _______…..he myelopathy would have to be considered as related to his injury.” Other medical reports cite the lengthy time between the date of injury and the first complaints of cervical discomfort as showing the compensable injury was not related to the cervical complaints.
In any event, the evidence was conflicting and the hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). The hearing officer 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.). This is equally true of medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). 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. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); 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 insurance carrier is AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
COMMODORE ONE
800 BRAZOS, SUITE 750
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge