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 30, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease and that the claimant has not had disability. The claimant appealed and the respondent (self-insured) responded.
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
COMPENSABLE INJURY ISSUE
The hearing officer was not persuaded that the claimant proved that her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) resulted from repetitious, physically traumatic activities at work as claimed by the claimant. See Section 401.011(36). The hearing officer found that the claimant’s CTS was neither caused by nor aggravated by the alleged repetitive activities performed by the claimant in the course and scope of her employment. The claimant had the burden to prove that she was injured during the course and scope of her employment. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). The hearing officer, as the finder of fact, may believe that the claimant has an injury, but disbelieve that the injury occurred as claimed by the claimant. Johnson. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the finder of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts in the evidence and determines what facts have been established. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant did not sustain a compensable occupational disease 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). Given our affirmance of the hearing officer’s finding against the claimant on the compensable injury issue, we need not address the hearing officer’s finding regarding the date the claimant knew or should have known that her injury may be related to her employment. We note that the hearing officer did not make a determination regarding whether the claimant timely notified her employer of her injury because he denied the carrier’s request to add that as a disputed issue.
DISABILITY ISSUE
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant has not had disability because, without a compensable injury, the claimant would not have disability as defined by Section 401.011(16).
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a self-insured governmental entity) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
MANAGER
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge