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 February 11, 2003. With respect to the single issue before her, the hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable injury of ___________, does not include depression and sleep disorder. In his appeal, the claimant essentially argues that the hearing officer’s determination is against the great weight of the evidence. In its response to the claimant’s appeal, the respondent (self-insured) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant’s compensable injury of ___________, does not include depression and sleep disorder. That issue presented a question of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. From the hearing officer’s discussion, it is apparent that she was not persuaded that the claimant sustained his burden of proving the causal connection between his compensable injury and his depression and sleep disorder. The hearing officer was acting within her province as the fact finder in so finding. Our review of the record does not reveal that the challenged determination is so against the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Therefore, no sound basis exists for us to reverse that determination on appeal. Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986); Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a self-insured governmental entity) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
MB
(ADDRESS)
(CITY) TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Daniel R. Barry – Appeals Judge
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge