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 14, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant/cross-respondent (claimant) did not sustain an occupational disease (repetitive trauma injury) on __________; that the claimant has not had disability; and that the claimant timely notified her employer of her claimed injury. The claimant appealed the hearing officer’s determinations that she did not sustain an occupational disease and that she has not had disability. The respondent/cross-appellant (carrier) appealed the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant timely notified her employer of her claimed injury.
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
COMPENSABLE INJURY ISSUE
The claimant claimed that she sustained a repetitive trauma injury as a result of her work activities as a bookkeeper for the employer. Section 401.011(36) defines a “repetitive trauma injury” as “damage or harm to the physical structure of the body occurring as the result of repetitious, physically traumatic activities that occur over time and arise out of and in the course and scope of employment.” The claimant had the burden to prove that she sustained an injury during the course and scope of her employment. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). The hearing officer found that the claimant was not exposed to repetitious, physically traumatic activities in her workplace and that the claimant’s work-related activities did not cause damage or harm to the physical structure of her body. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the finder of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts in the evidence and determines what facts have been established. We conclude that the hearing officer’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence and that it is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
DISABILITY ISSUE
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant has not had disability because, without a compensable injury, the claimant would not have disability as defined by Section 401.011(16).
TIMELY NOTICE ISSUE
It is undisputed that the date of injury, under Section 408.007, for the claimed occupational disease was __________. Conflicting evidence was presented on the issue of whether the claimant notified her employer of her claimed work-related injury within 30 days of the date of injury. See Section 409.001(a). The hearing officer resolved the conflicts in the evidence and determined that the claimant reported the alleged injury to her employer within 30 days of __________. The hearing officer’s determination on the timely notice issue is supported by sufficient evidence and is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain, supra.
OTHER MATTERS
The hearing officer did not err in excluding Carrier’s Exhibit No. 4 from evidence because that exhibit was not timely exchanged with the claimant.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is NORTH AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge