Title: 

APD 032564

Significant Decision

Date: 

November 18, 2003

Issues: 

Disabilty/Existence-Duration, Extent of Injury

Table of Contents

APD 032564

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 August 27, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the respondent’s (claimant) compensable injury does not include the thoracic spine but does include the lumbar spine and that the claimant had disability on February 6, 2003, and from February 11 through August 27, 2003. The appellant (carrier) appeals the determination that the compensable injury includes the lumbar spine and that the claimant had disability for the stated periods.

DECISION

Affirmed.

Extent of injury and disability are factual questions for the hearing officer to resolve. Injury and disability determinations can be established by the claimant’s testimony alone, if believed by the hearing officer. Gee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 765 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. 1989). The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)) and resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence including the medical evidence (Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ)). It was the hearing officer’s prerogative to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness, including that of the claimant. Aetna Insurance Company v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, no writ). Nothing in our review of the record indicates that the hearing officer’s decision is 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, 176 (Tex. 1986). With regard to the extent-of-injury issue, lay testimony is sufficient to establish causation where, based upon common knowledge, a fact finder could understand a causal connection between the employment and the injury, but expert testimony may be required where such common knowledge does not exist. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 941464, decided January 9, 1995. Given the mechanism of injury, we do not view this case as one requiring expert medical evidence to establish causation; however, we note that such evidence is included in the record.

The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.

The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is

LEO MALO

12222 MERIT DRIVE, SUITE 700

DALLAS, TEXAS 75251.

Chris Cowan

CONCUR:

Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge

Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge