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 April 4, 2002. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable repetitive trauma injury with a date of injury of____________; that the repetitive trauma injury does not extend to and include the cervical spine, lumbar spine, right elbow, left thumb, and bilateral wrists; and that the claimant does not have disability. The claimant appeals, asserting that the great weight of the evidence is contrary to the hearing officer’s decision. In addition to the appeal filed by the claimant’s attorney, the claimant herself submitted a two-page “Final Letter of Appeal” with an additional 14 pages of medical records pertaining to her____________, left thumb injury, which records were not previously offered in this case. The respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
In deciding whether the hearing officer’s decision is sufficiently supported by the evidence, we will only consider the evidence admitted at the hearing. We will not generally consider evidence not submitted into the record, and raised for the first time on appeal. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92255, decided July 27, 1992. To determine whether evidence offered for the first time on appeal requires that the case be remanded for further consideration, we consider whether it came to the appellant’s knowledge after the hearing, whether it is cumulative, whether it was through lack of diligence that it was not offered at the hearing, and whether it is so material that it would probably produce a different result. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93111, decided March 29, 1993; Black v. Wills, 758 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1988, no writ). We do not find that to be the case with the documents that the claimant attached to her personal request for review, which were not offered or admitted into evidence at the hearing and which are dated prior to the hearing.
Whether the claimant sustained a compensable injury, the extent of the compensable injury, and whether the claimant had disability are factual questions for the hearing officer to resolve. The hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence as well as the weight and credibility that is to be given to the evidence. Section 410.165(a). 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. 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). We have reviewed the matters complained of on appeal and conclude that the hearing officer’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence.
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is NORTH AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY 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.
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Roy L. Warren – Appeals Judge