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 6, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease. The claimant appeals the determination on sufficiency grounds. The respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease. The claimant had the burden to prove a causal connection between her exposure to mold at work and her pulmonary disease. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 94309, decided April 29, 1994. Where the matter of causation of the claimed injury is beyond common knowledge or experience, as in this case, expert evidence to a reasonable degree of medical probability is required. Schaefer v. Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, 612 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. 1980).In view of the medical evidence presented, we cannot conclude that the hearing officer’s determination is 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 (Tex. 1986).
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the carrier is (self-insured governmental entity) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
JR
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Edward Vilano
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge