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 29, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the _____________, compensable injury of the appellant (claimant) does not include an injury to the cervical spine. Claimant appealed this determination on sufficiency grounds. Respondent (carrier) responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
DECISION
We affirm.
We have reviewed the complained-of determination regarding extent of injury and conclude that the issue involved a fact question for the hearing officer. The hearing officer reviewed the record and decided what facts were established. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determination is supported by the record and is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). Claimant also complained that the hearing officer found that she did not have a herniated disc, but the hearing officer did not make such a determination. The hearing officer determined that claimant’s neck condition is not causally related to the compensable injury. We perceive no error.
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
According to information provided by carrier, the true corporate name of the insurance carrier is LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Judy L. S. Barnes
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge