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 October 25, 2002. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the respondent’s (claimant) compensable injury of ____________, extends to and includes her depression. The appellant (self-insured) appealed, arguing that the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant’s compensable injury extends to and includes depression was against the great weight of the evidence. The claimant responded, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on ____________. The sole issue before the hearing officer was whether the claimant’s compensable injury extends to and includes depression. The Appeals Panel observed in Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 961449, decided September 9, 1996, that the fact that there may be more than one cause of the claimant’s psychological condition does not preclude a finding of compensability, provided that there is a causal connection between the compensable injury and the claimant’s psychological problems. Compare Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 950749 decided June 21, 1995, (protracted dispute resolution process does not make resultant stress part of the compensable injury). The causal connection here is met by the fact that the injury resulted in chronic pain and loss of function. The hearing officer found that the medical evidence indicates by a reasonable medical probability that the depression is related to the compensable injury.
Extent of injury is a question of fact for the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93613, decided August 24, 1993. There was conflicting evidence on the issue. Section 410.165(a) provides that the hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence. It was for the hearing officer, as trier of fact, to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence and determine what facts had been established. Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co., 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the challenged determination is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. As such, no sound basis exists for us to reverse the hearing officer’s decision on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986); Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986).
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT (a self-insured governmental entity) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
For service in person the address is:
RON JOSSELET, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT
300 W. 15TH STREET
WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, JR. STATE OFFICE BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
For service by mail the address is:
RON JOSSELET, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT
P.O. BOX 13777
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-3777.
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge