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 20, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on ______________; that the claimant does not have disability; and that the respondent (carrier) is relieved of liability due to the claimant’s failure to timely notify the employer. The claimant appealed, arguing that the hearing officer erred in determining compensability, disability, and failure to timely notify the employer. The carrier filed a response, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant testified that he was injured on ______________, when he hit his elbow against a pallet. The claimant stated that he reported his injury to his supervisor the day of the claimed injury; however, the supervisor testified that he was not informed of the injury. The claimant was terminated from his employment on May 14, 2001, and thereafter sought medical attention. The medical records in evidence show a normal MRI of the right shoulder dated June 7, 2001, and a normal EMG study of the upper extremity on September 18, 2001.
The evidence sufficiently supports the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on ______________. The hearing officer was not persuaded that the claimant’s testimony was credible. Given our affirmance of the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, we likewise affirm her determination that the claimant did not have disability. By definition, the existence of a compensable injury is a prerequisite to a finding of disability. Section 401.011(16).
The evidence sufficiently supports the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant failed to timely notify his employer of his injury and that the carrier is relieved from liability under Section 409.002. Section 409.001 requires that an employee, or a person acting on the employee’s behalf, shall notify the employer of an injury not later than the 30th day after the date on which the injury occurs. Failure to do so, absent a showing of good cause or actual knowledge of the injury by the employer, relieves the carrier and employer of liability for the payment of benefits for the injury. Section 409.002.
It is the hearing officer, as the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)), who 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). 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 SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge