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 29, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the respondent’s (claimant) ______________, compensable injury does not include a left foot or left shoulder injury, but does extend to include depression. The appellant (self-insured) appeals the determination that the injury includes depression. The claimant urges affirmance of the hearing officer’s decision.
DECISION
Affirmed.
Depression is compensable if it is the “result of the injury” as opposed to being traceable to the “circumstances arising out of and immediately following the injury.” Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 961449, decided September 9, 1996. Where depression naturally flowed from the pain and physical limitations caused by the compensable injury, it is compensable; whereas depression that resulted from the stress of the workers’ compensation “system” or financial difficulties is not compensable. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 030056, decided February 12, 2003, and cases cited therein. The fact that there may be more than one cause of the claimant’s depression does not preclude a finding of compensability, provided that there is a causal connection between the compensable injury and the claimant’s condition. Appeal No. 961449, supra.
Whether the claimant’s depression resulted from the compensable injury was a question 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)) and, as the trier of fact, 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)). Nothing in our review of the record indicates that the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant’s compensable injury extends to and includes depression is 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).
The decision and order of the hearing officer 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
BG
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge