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 August 29, 2001, with the record closing on October 26, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by concluding that the compensable injury sustained by the appellant (claimant) on __________, does not extend to or include the condition of left drop foot. The claimant appealed, arguing that there was medical evidence that established the compensable injury did extend to the left drop foot and requesting an extension to allow him to introduce further medical evidence on appeal. In its response, the carrier notes that there is no statutory authority for an extension, and argues that the claimant failed to meet his burden of proof and that the determination of the hearing officer should be affirmed.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant contends in his request for review that he did not agree to a final date of October 26, 2001, for the record to close. However, the record reflects that the claimant asked for one month following the hearing to submit additional evidence and was granted more time than he requested. The claimant requested an extension in his appeal. The time for appeal is 15 days after receipt of the decision of the hearing officer. See Section 410.202. The Appeals Panel is without authority to expand the 15 days set forth by the 1989 Act. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 94285, decided April 20, 1994.
The parties stipulated that the claimant, a limousine/hearse driver, sustained a compensable injury on __________, in the form of a bee sting. It was undisputed that the sting resulted in acute kidney failure. The claimant testified that about two months after he sustained the compensable injury, he developed left drop foot. The designated doctor, Dr. H, in a report dated May 17, 1999, stated that he did not believe the left drop foot was a compensable injury. The doctor who authored the medical record peer review, Dr. P, concluded in his report dated July 3, 2000, that he agreed with Dr. H that the left drop foot is unrelated to the work injury. In a neurological consultation dated October 5, 1998, Dr. S stated “the etiology of the foot drop is most likely a peroneal palsy, statistically at the knee” or possibly a left L5 radiculopathy. The claimant provided medical evidence from a toxicologist, Dr. C, who concluded that the sting “induced a long-term peripheral neuropathy [which] manifest[ed] as weakness in the lower extremities with impaired mobility.”
Extent of injury is a question of fact. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93613, decided August 24, 1993. 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 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). We are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to support the hearing officer’s determination that the compensable injury does not extend to the condition of left drop foot.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TEXAS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION for Reliance National Indemnity Company, an impaired carrier, and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
MARK RIEGLING
9120 BURNET ROAD
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78758.
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge