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 August 13, 2002. The hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease; that the claimant had disability resulting from the compensable injury beginning on January 11, 2002, and continuing through February 18, 2002; that the appellant (carrier) is not relieved of liability under Section 409.002, because the claimant timely notified her employer pursuant to Section 409.001; and that the date of injury is _____________, the date the claimant knew or should have known the disease may be related to her employment pursuant to Section 408.007.
DECISION
We affirm.
The hearing officer did not err in his determinations on the issues of occupational disease injury, date of injury, timely notice of injury, and disability. Section 401.011(34) provides that an occupational disease includes a repetitive trauma injury, which is defined in Section 401.011(36). Section 408.007 provides that the date of injury for an occupational disease is the date on which the employee knew or should have known that the disease may be related to the employment. Section 409.001(a) provides that, if the injury is an occupational disease, an employee or a person acting on the employee’s behalf shall notify the employer of the employee of an injury not later than the 30th day after the date on which the employee knew or should have known that the injury may be related to the employment. Section 401.011(16) defines “disability” as the inability because of a compensable injury to obtain and retain employment at wages equivalent to the preinjury wage. Conflicting evidence was presented on the issues of occupational disease injury, date of injury, timely notice to the employer, and disability. 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 from the evidence presented. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations on the issues of occupational disease injury, date of injury, timely notice to the employer, and disability are supported by sufficient evidence and are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Accordingly, we affirm those determinations of the hearing officer.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS, SUITE 750, COMMODORE 1
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge