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 December 19, 2002. With respect to the issues before her, the hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease; that the date of injury is _____________; that the claimant timely reported her injury to her employer; and that the claimant had disability, as a result of her compensable injury, from November 6, 2001, through the date of the hearing. In its appeal, the appellant (carrier) argues that the hearing officer’s determinations are against the great weight of the evidence. The appeal file does not contain a response to the carrier’s appeal from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant sustained a compensable repetitive trauma injury; that the date of injury is _____________; and that the claimant timely reported her injury to her employer. Those issues presented questions of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the trier of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and decides what facts the evidence has established. Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The hearing officer was persuaded that the claimant sustained her burden of proving that she sustained a repetitive trauma injury as a result of performing her job duties with the employer, that her date of injury is _____________, and that she timely reported her injury to her employer. The factors emphasized by the carrier in challenging the hearing officer’s determinations on appeal are the same factors it emphasized at the hearing. The significance, if any, of those factors was a matter for the hearing officer in making her credibility determinations. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the challenged determinations are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to reverse those determinations on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
The success of the carrier’s argument that the claimant did not have disability is dependent upon the success of its argument that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury. Given our affirmance of the injury and notice determinations, we likewise affirm the determination that the claimant had disability, as a result of her compensable injury, from November 6, 2001, through the date of the hearing.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
RUSSELL R. OLIVER, PRESIDENT
221 WEST 6TH STREET
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge