Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
APD 041627
August 27, 2004

APD 041627

August 27, 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 June 15, 2004. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable repetitive trauma injury with a date of injury of ______________, and that she had disability from October 8 through December 30, 2003. The appellant (carrier) appealed those determinations on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. In her response to the carrier’s appeal, the claimant urges affirmance.



The hearing officer did not err in making his injury and disability determinations. 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). The hearing officer was persuaded that the claimant sustained her burden of proving that she sustained an injury as a result of performing repetitively traumatic activities in the course and scope of her employment as a customer service representative for the employer and that she had disability from October 8 through December 30, 2003. The hearing officer was acting within his province as the fact finder in resolving the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence in favor of the claimant. The factors emphasized by the carrier in challenging the injury and disability determinations on appeal are the same factors it emphasized at the hearing. The significance, if any, of those factors was a matter for the hearing officer in resolving the issues before him. 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 the injury and disability 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 ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is





Elaine M. Chaney


Daniel R. Barry
Appeals Judge

Chris Cowan
Appeals Judge