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 21, 2002. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on ___________, and that she had disability from ___________, through the date of the hearing. In its appeal, the appellant (carrier) asserts error in those determinations. The claimant responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant had the burden to prove that she was injured in the course and scope of her employment and that she had disability as defined by Section 401.011(16). Conflicting evidence was presented at the hearing. 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. The hearing officer’s determinations that the claimant sustained a compensable injury and that she had disability from ___________, through the date of the hearing are supported by the claimant’s testimony and by the medical reports. The hearing officer’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence and is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Thus, no sound basis exists for us to reverse the decision on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
The carrier also contends that the hearing officer erred Aas a matter of law in finding that the claimant sustained a compensable injury because the injury was Aidiopathic in nature. We cannot agree that the evidence established that the claimant’s injury was Aidiopathic. To the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the claimant tripped over a mail cart and fell to the floor. That evidence establishes the causal connection between the claimant’s employment and her injury. We have previously considered and rejected arguments similar to the one advanced by the carrier in this instance and do so here for the same reasons. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 020583, decided April 30, 2002; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 012376-s, decided November 14, 2001; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 990252, decided March 25, 1999; and Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 972235, decided December 17, 1997.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
RON DODD
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
8900 AMBERGLEN BOULEVARD
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78729-1110.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge