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. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable repetitive trauma injury; that the date of injury as defined in Section 408.007 is _______________; that the respondent (carrier) is relieved from liability under Section 409.002 because of the claimant’s failure to timely notify the employer pursuant to Section 409.001; and that the claimant did not have disability. The claimant appealed the hearing officer’s determinations essentially on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. The carrier urges affirmance.
The claimant testified that she sustained a repetitive trauma injury of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) due to her employment as a service representative. The hearing officer did not find that the level of keyboarding she described was unduly repetitive. The hearing officer also found that the claimant should have known on _______________, that she had symptoms with her left hand and wrist which may be related to her employment. He found evidence that the injury was not reported to her employer until May 22, 2003.
The issues of injury, date of injury, report of injury to employer, and disability presented questions of fact for the fact finder. Section 410.165(a) provides that 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. It was for the hearing officer, as trier of fact, to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). This is equally true regarding medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness. Aetna Insurance Company v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, no writ). The hearing officer noted that the claimant developed CTS but did not present a real causation letter or opinion linking the condition, or any injury or problem, to work activity. He also did not find the claimant’s testimony credible that she had given notice to her employer on May 6, 2003, because she testified that the notice was given the day after receiving EMG/NCV results from one of her doctors. There was evidence in the record that her doctor had provided the results on April 11, 2003. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the hearing officer’s injury, date of injury, report of injury, and disability determinations are so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. As such, no sound basis exists for us to reverse those determinations on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS STREET, SUITE 750, COMMODORE 1
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Thomas A. Knapp
Veronica L. Ruberto
Margaret A. Turner