Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
APD 041779
September 2, 2004

APD 041779

September 2, 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 7, 2004. With respect to the issue before her, the hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant) ________________, compensable injury extends to include depression but does not include bladder incontinence. In her appeal, the claimant argues that the hearing officer’s determination that her compensable injury does not extend to include bladder incontinence is against the great weight of the evidence. In its response to the claimant’s appeal, the respondent (carrier) urges affirmance. The carrier did not appeal the determination that the claimant’s compensable injury extends to include depression and that determination has, therefore, become final. Section 410.169.



The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant’s compensable injury does not include bladder incontinence. The claimant had the burden of proof on that issue and it presented a question of fact for the hearing officer. There was conflicting evidence presented on the issue of whether the compensable injury extended to include bladder incontinence. The 1989 Act makes the hearing officer the sole judge of the weight and credibility to be given to the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As such, the hearing officer was required to resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and to determine what facts the evidence established. In this instance, the hearing officer simply was not persuaded that the claimant sustained her burden of proving that her compensable injury extended to include bladder incontinence. The hearing officer was acting within her province as the fact finder in so finding. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the challenged determination is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust. Thus, no sound basis exists for us to disturb that determination 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 AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is




Elaine M. Chaney
Appeals Judge


Chris Cowan
Appeals Judge

Robert W. Potts
Appeals Judge