This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on April 4, 2001. With regard to the only issue before him, the hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable repetitive trauma injury to her right wrist on ____________. (All dates are 2001 unless otherwise noted).
The appellant (carrier) appealed on the basis that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the hearing officer’s decision. The file does not contain a response from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed for the reasons stated.
The claimant was employed as a “fingerprint technician” on _________. In addition to duties as a fingerprint technician, the claimant had some orientation and rotated through two other positions as a receptionist and an “I-90 clerk.” The claimant had worked as a fingerprint technician only about two or two and one-half weeks as of __________. The claimant testified that on __________ she was fingerprinting an “old person” with “very very heavy hands” and her right wrist began to hurt. At the CCH the carrier specifically asked the claimant “whether she was claiming that her alleged injury was due to the single incident of helping the man with the heavy hands” or was a repetitive trauma injury. The claimant answered “I don’t know if it was the single incident, but I started feeling pain on that person, when I’m doing that person.” The claimant went on to say “I just started feeling pain on that day. That’s all I have to say.” The medical reports in evidence diagnosed a sprain/strain of the right wrist and tendonitis.
The hearing officer commented:
Claimant is not persuasive that she has carpal tunnel syndrome, but she is persuasive that she injured her wrist in the form of a sprain to the tendons and ligaments in her wrist hand [sic] which was exacerbated by an incident requiring extensive manual manipulation while taking fingerprints of an elderly man who was resistant.
The hearing officer then found that the claimant had a right wrist sprain “as a result of repetitive use of the wrist while taking fingerprints.”
While we may agree with the carrier that there is insufficient evidence of physically repetitive traumatic activities to constitute a repetitive trauma injury there is sufficient evidence that the claimant sustained a specific incident sprained wrist injury working with the “old man” with the heavy hands. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 000741, decided May 25, 2000, for a case where the Appeals Panel affirmed the hearing officer who found a compensable single-event injury although the issue was framed in terms of an occupational disease.
The Appeals Panel has held that it will uphold the decision of the hearing officer if it can be sustained on any reasonable basis supported by the evidence. Daylin, Inc. v. Juarez, 766 S.W. 2d 347 (Tex. App.-El Paso, writ denied). We affirm the hearing officer’s decision that the claimant sustained a specific incident compensable injury to her right wrist, as being supported by the evidence. 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 CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C. T. CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 N. ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge