Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
APD 041498
August 11, 2004

APD 041498

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 was held on May 25, 2004. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the respondent’s (claimant) compensable injury of _____________, extends to and includes left carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and that the claimant had disability, as a result of her compensable injury, from March 8 through September 24, 2002, and from November 20, 2003, through the date of the hearing. In its appeal, the appellant (self-insured) argues that the extent-of-injury and disability determinations are against the great weight of the evidence. In her response to the self-insured’s appeal, the claimant urges affirmance.



The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant’s compensable injury of _____________, includes left CTS and that she had disability from March 8 through September 24, 2002, and from November 20, 2003, through the date of the hearing. Those issues presented questions 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). As the trier of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and decides what facts the evidence has established. Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). There was conflicting evidence on the disputed issues and the hearing officer was acting within his province as the fact finder in giving more weight to the evidence tending to demonstrate that the claimant’s compensable injury included left CTS and that she had disability for the periods found. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the challenged determinations are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to reverse those determinations on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).

The hearing officer’s decision and order 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




Elaine M. Chaney
Appeals Judge


Thomas A. Knapp
Appeals Judge

Margaret L. Turner
Appeals Judge