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 March 6, 2002. The hearing officer resolved the sole disputed issue by determining that the appellant (claimant) did not have disability, as a result of her compensable injury of ___________, from June 19, 2001, through the date of the hearing. The parties stipulated that the claimant did not have disability from ______ to September 4, 2000, and that she had disability from September 5, 2000, to June 18, 2001. In her appeal, the claimant argues that the hearing officer’s determination that her compensable injury was not a cause of her inability to work in the period from June 19, 2001, through the date of the hearing is against the great weight of the evidence. In its response to the claimant’s appeal, the respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not have disability, as a result of her compensable injury, from June 19, 2001, through the date of the hearing. That issue presented a question of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. There was conflicting evidence on the issue of whether the claimant’s compensable injury was a cause of her inability to work during the period at issue. The hearing officer gave more weight to the evidence from Dr. E and Dr. D demonstrating that it was the claimant’s rheumatological condition that caused her inability to work after June 18, 2001. The hearing officer was acting within her province as the fact finder in so finding. We find no merit in the claimant’s assertion that the hearing officer improperly required her to prove that her compensable injury was the sole cause of her disability. To the contrary, the hearing officer determined that the claimant did not sustain her burden of proving that her compensable injury was a producing cause of her inability to work after June 18, 2001, based upon her determination that the inability to work was solely caused by the claimant’s rheumatological condition at that point. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the challenged disability determination is so against the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. As such, no sound basis exists for us to reverse that determination on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge