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 22, 2001. With regard to the four disputed issues before her, the hearing officer determined that the appellant/cross-respondent (claimant) did not sustain a compensable pulmonary and right ankle injury on _____________ (all dates are 2001 unless otherwise noted); that the claimant did sustain a compensable back injury on _____________; that the claimant failed to timely report any of his claimed injuries to the employer and did not have good cause for failing to do so; and that the claimant did not have any disability.
The claimant appealed the noncompensability of the pulmonary and ankle injuries, the timely notice, and the disability issues, asking the Appeals Panel to “weight all the evidence” (emphasis in the original). The respondent/cross-appellant (carrier) appeals the determination of a back injury and responds to the claimant’s appeal, urging affirmance on those issues. The file does not contain a response from the claimant to the carrier’s appeal.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant was employed as a boilermaker/welder and testified how on _____________, he was exposed to some insulation and encapsulating chemicals (designed to prevent asbestos particles from floating in the air). The claimant testified that after he completed the insulating task, he slipped and injured his back and ankle as he was descending a ladder. The claimant said that toward the end of his shift, he began to feel ill, that he developed chills, and that his parents later took him to a hospital emergency room with a very high fever and coughing up blood. On the way to the hospital, the claimant made a phone call to his brother, BG, a foreman and supervisor for the employer, on his mother’s cell phone.
Much of the evidence is in dispute, including whether the claimant had even been exposed to asbestos, whether the claimant only had pneumonia, exactly what the claimant told BG in the cell phone conversation, what the claimant may have reported to the hospital personnel, and the reasons for the claimant not claiming an ankle injury sooner. All of those disputes involve factual determinations for the hearing officer to resolve. The hearing officer summarized the testimony and other documentary evidence, and, in her decision, gives the rationale for her decision.
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.). 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 ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge