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 November 14, 2001. The issues were:
1.Does the compensable injury sustained on __________ extend to include left S-1 radiculopathy and the impressions of an MRI lumbar spine dated 8-13-01 (spondylosis deformans with multilevel degenerative desiccation and anterior traction osteophytes; at L1-L2 there is a large left central/left subarticular disc herniation/protrusion producing marked narrowing of the neural foramina; at L4-L5 there is a left central disc herniation/protrusion producing significant central spinal canal and lateral recess stenosis; at L5-S1 there is a right central/right subarticular disc herniation/protrusion producing posterior displacement of the S1 nerve root)?
2.Did the [respondent] Claimant have disability from July 18, 2001 to the present resulting from the injury sustained on ____________?
The hearing officer determined that the compensable (low back) injury extended to include the specific listed injuries and the claimant had disability from July 18, 2001 (all dates are 2001 unless otherwise noted), to the date of the CCH.
The appellant’s (carrier) appeal principally attacks the claimant’s credibility and the inference which could be drawn from that testimony and contends that the claimant’s injury is limited to a “mild lumbar strain.” The carrier also challenges the disability determination, asserting that the claimant had no disability because she had returned to work at light duty. The claimant responds, disagreeing with the carrier’s appeal and requesting affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant had been employed as an “assembler” for the employer and the parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a “compensable lumbar sprain/strain injury on ____________.” The claimant saw the employer’s doctor on June 13 and was returned to work at light duty with certain restrictions. The claimant testified that her low back condition was not improving so she changed treating doctors to Dr. T, a chiropractor, who took her off work on July 18. Dr. T referred the claimant to various specialists and various diagnostic tests, including an MRI, were performed which indicated the claimed conditions. The claimant was examined by a carrier-selected required medical examination doctor on September 18, who indicated that the claimant was at maximum medical improvement (MMI) and “should return immediately to regular work.” A designated doctor was of the opinion that the claimant was not at MMI.
The evidence was in conflict. The hearing officer heard the claimant’s testimony and reviewed the medical evidence. 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.). 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). Whether a specific injury extends to include other claimed conditions is generally a question of fact. 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 and 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 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
GEORGE MICHAEL JONES
9330 LBJ FREEWAY
SUITE 1200
DALLAS, TEXAS 75243.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Terri Kay Oliver – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge