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 November 5, 2002. The hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant herein) sustained a compensable repetitive trauma injury with a date of injury of ___________. The appellant (carrier herein) files a request for review arguing that this determination was contrary to the evidence. The claimant responds, that the evidence sufficiently supported the decision of the hearing officer.
DECISION
Finding sufficient evidence to support the decision of the hearing officer and no reversible error in the record, we affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
Section 401.011(34) provides that an occupational disease includes a repetitive trauma injury, which is defined in Section 401.011(36) as “damage or harm to the physical structure of the body occurring as the result of repetitious, physically traumatic activities that occur over time and arise out of and in the course and scope of employment.” The claimant claimed a repetitive trauma injury to her upper extremities from performing her work activities as a machine operator.
The claimant had the burden to prove that she sustained a repetitive trauma injury during the course and scope of her employment. Davis v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 694 S.W.2d 105 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, writ ref’d. n.r.e.). Conflicting evidence was presented at the CCH with regard to the issue of whether the claimant sustained an occupational disease. 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. We conclude that the hearing officer’s finding that the claimant has sustained a repetitive trauma injury to her bilateral upper extremities due to her job duties for the employer as a machine operator is supported by sufficient evidence and is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
PAUL DAVID EDGE
6404 INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY, SUITE 1000
PLANO, TEXAS 75093.
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Terri Kay Oliver – Appeals Judge