Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
APD 041758
August 31, 2004

APD 041758

August 31, 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 July 1, 2004. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the compensable injury sustained on ________________, does not extend to include reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) of the right upper extremity. The appellant (claimant) appealed, disputing the extent-of-injury determination. The respondent (self-insured) responded, urging affirmance.



The issue of whether the claimant’s compensable injury of ________________, extends to include RSD of the right upper extremity presented a question of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. The hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence as well as the weight and credibility that is to be given to the evidence. Section 410.165(a). It was a matter for the hearing officer to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence and to decide what facts the evidence has established. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). In this instance, the hearing officer was not persuaded that the claimant sustained her burden of proving the causal connection between her compensable injury and the RSD. The hearing officer noted that the evidence was insufficient to establish a causal relationship between the diagnosed RSD of the right upper extremity and the compensable injury sustained on ________________. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the challenged determination is 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 determination that the compensable injury does not extend to include RSD of the right upper extremity. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).

We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.

The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a certified self-insured) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is




Margaret L. Turner
Appeals Judge


Elaine M. Chaney
Appeals Judge

Gary L. Kilgore
Appeals Judge