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 November 5, 2001. With regard to the five issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) had not sustained a compensable injury on ______________ (all dates are 2001 unless otherwise noted); that the claimant did not have disability (as defined in Section 401.011(16)); that the employer had not made a bona fide offer of employment (BFOE); that the claimed injury was not caused by the claimant’s willful attempt to injure himself or others (Section 406.032(1)(B)); and that the claimed injury did not arise out of the act of a third person because of personal reasons (Section 406.032(1)(C)). The hearing officer’s determinations on the BFOE and Section 406.032(1)(B) and (C) issues have not been appealed and have become final pursuant to Section 410.169.
The claimant appeals the determinations on the injury and disability issues, contending that the great weight and preponderance of the evidence is to the contrary. The respondent (carrier) responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant was a “mail handler” and part of his duties included placing air mail packages on a conveyor belt. The claimant contends that on February 13, the claimant’s supervisor, Mr. S, was throwing packages at him and that Mr. S then lifted the claimant (who weighs 250 pounds) onto the conveyor belt where the claimant fell, injuring his right shoulder. Exactly what, if anything, happened is in dispute.
The hearing officer found that there was “a minor work related incident” on __________, that the claimant did not sustain an injury in that incident as defined by Section 401.011(26), and that the claimant did not have disability due to that incident as defined by Section 401.011(16).
Sorting out what happened on __________ is solely within the province of the hearing officer (Section 410.165(a)), who is not bound by medical evidence which is dependant on the credibility of the information given to the doctor by the claimant/patient. Rowland v. Standard Fire Insurance Company, 489 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.). We have reviewed the appealed determinations and conclude that the issues involved fact questions for the hearing officer. The hearing officer reviewed the record and decided what facts were established. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
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:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge