Title: 

APD 032042

Significant Decision

Date: 

September 18, 2003

Issues: 

Compensability-Occupationl Inj, Disabilty/Existence-Duration

Table of Contents

APD 032042

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 July 2, 2003. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable repetitive trauma injury, with a date of injury of ______________, and had disability from March 20 through May 18, 2003. The appellant (self-insured) appealed on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. The appeal file does not contain a response from the claimant.

DECISION

Affirmed.

The claimant had the burden to prove that she sustained a repetitive trauma injury, which is defined 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” and that she has had disability as defined by Section 401.011(16). Conflicting evidence was presented on the disputed issues. The hearing officer was persuaded that although the claimant’s activities as a customer service representative were at times varied, the evidence was sufficient to support that her job activities required her to constantly use her upper extremities to perform her job. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). It was for the hearing officer, as trier of fact, to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). This is equally true regarding medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). We conclude that the determinations are supported by sufficient evidence and that they are 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 (a certified self-insured) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is

CT CORPORATION SYSTEM

350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET

DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.

Margaret L. Turner

CONCUR:

Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge

Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge