Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
Title:
APD 041479
Date:
August 11, 2004

APD 041479

August 11, 2004

This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on May 20, 2004. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on _____________, and did not have disability. The claimant appealed these determinations, asserting that the hearing officer applied an improper legal standard and failed to designate the correct date of injury. The respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.

DECISION

Affirmed.

The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on _____________. Whether the claimant sustained an injury in the course and scope of his employment was a question of fact. It was for the hearing officer, as the trier of fact, to resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and to determine what facts had been established. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). The hearing officer found, as one basis for his decision, that the claimant was not credible and did not sustain an injury to his low back in the course and scope of his employment. We will uphold the decision of a hearing officer if it can be sustained on any reasonable basis supported by the evidence. Daylin, Inc. v. Juarez, 766 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1989, writ denied). Accordingly, we cannot conclude that this determination 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 1989 Act requires the existence of a compensable injury as a prerequisite to a finding of disability. Section 401.011(16). Because we have affirmed the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, we likewise affirm the determination that he did not have disability.

As stated above, the claimant also asserts that the hearing officer failed to designate the correct date of injury. We note that the date of injury was not in dispute at the CCH. Accordingly, we will not address it for the first time on appeal.

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

LEE F. MALO

12222 MERIT DRIVE, SUITE 700

DALLAS, TEXAS 75251.

Edward Vilano

CONCUR:

Judy L. S. Barnes
Appeals Judge

Daniel R. Barry
Appeals Judge

Top