Title: 

APD 013182

Significant Decision

Date: 

February 7, 2002

Issues: 

Existence of Compensable Inj

Table of Contents

APD 013182

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 December 3, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by concluding that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on __________. The claimant appeals, arguing that the evidence presented at the hearing supports a finding of a compensable injury. The respondent (carrier) replies that the decision of the hearing officer should be affirmed.

DECISION

Affirmed.

The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on __________. The claimant had the burden to prove that she sustained damage or harm to the physical structure of the body, arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91028, decided October 23, 1991. There was conflicting evidence presented with regard to this issue. The question of whether an injury occurred is one of fact. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93854, decided November 9, 1993; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93449, decided July 21, 1993. Section 410.165(a) provides that the contested case hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence as well as of the weight and credibility that is to be given the evidence. It was for the hearing officer, as trier of fact, to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence and to decide what facts that evidence has established. Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co., 508 S.W.2d 701, 702 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury is so against the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Therefore, no sound basis exists for us to disturb that determination on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).

The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.

The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is

CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY

800 BRAZOS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.

Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge

CONCUR:

Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge

Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge