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 July 17, 2001. In Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 011904, decided September 25, 2001, the Appeals Panel remanded the case back to the hearing officer to obtain the correct street address of the respondent (carrier) as required by Section 410.164(c) amended effective June 17, 2001. The hearing officer provided the required information, admitted as Hearing Officer’s Exhibit No. 6, and recited that the Statement of the Evidence and decision in the case heard on July 17, 2001, was adopted verbatim. In that case, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) had not sustained a compensable injury on ______________ (all dates are 2000 unless otherwise noted), and that the claimant did not have disability.
The claimant appeals, contending that a prior 1995 injury did not include a low back injury, that the hearing officer erred in discussing an aggravation injury, that the date of injury was not an issue, and that the hearing officer’s decision was against the great weight of the evidence. The file does not contain a response from the carrier.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1995. In dispute is whether that injury included a low back component. In any event, the claimant returned to work in 1997; he testified that his 1995 back injury had completely resolved. The claimant was employed by a temporary staffing agency (employer) and assigned to work as a “gunslinger” for the city running behind garbage trucks throwing bags of trash into the trucks. The claimant testified that he injured his back slinging a bag of trash into the back of a garbage truck.
Initially, the claimant reported that the injury occurred on __________, but after it was determined that the claimant was not working that day, the claimant said he was hurt on __________. The claimant worked the next day or so (either __________ or __________ through __________) at light duty. The claimant first saw Dr. B on June 7.
In a report dated June 7, Dr. B references the claimant’s 1995 injury and recites that the claimant’s “back never really stopped hurting.” Dr. B suggests “that the exacerbation” was due to the claimant’s duties with the employer. Dr. B diagnosed cervical, dorsal, and lumbosacral strain. Dr. S, a chiropractor, took the claimant off work “from June 22, 2000” to February 15, 2001.
The claimant testified that he does not read or write and that he disputes some of the reports and forms which purport to document what the claimant said. Further, the hearing officer commented in her Statement of the Evidence that “Claimant did not move, respond, act or behave as though he was suffering a back injury during the course of the entire [CCH].” The hearing officer did not err in discussing an aggravation theory because that appears to be the basis of Dr. B’s June 7 report.
In any event, the evidence was conflicting, and it is the responsibility of the hearing officer to resolve 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). 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).
Our review of the record does not indicate that the hearing officer favored the carrier or did anything other than resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies in the medical evidence. 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 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
GARY SUDOL
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
9330 LBJ FREEWAY, SUITE 1200
DALLAS, TEXAS 75243.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge