Title: 

APD 042198

Significant Decision

Date: 

October 7, 2004

Issues: 

Extent of Injury

Table of Contents

APD 042198

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 August 2, 2004. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the _____________, compensable injury extends to and includes a psychological injury of depression. The appellant (self-insured) appealed, arguing that the medical evidence presented failed to present a causal nexus between the compensable injury of _____________, and the claimant’s psychological injury of depression. The respondent (claimant) responded, urging affirmance.

DECISION

Affirmed.

The hearing officer did not err in determining that the compensable injury of _____________, extends to and includes a psychological injury of depression. This was a question 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)) and, as the trier of fact, resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence, including the medical evidence (Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ)). The Appeals Panel observed in Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 961449, decided September 9, 1996, that the fact that there may be more than one cause of the claimant’s psychological condition does not preclude a finding of compensability, provided that there is a causal connection between the compensable injury and the claimant’s psychological problems. The hearing officer was persuaded that the evidence established that the claimant developed depression as a natural result of the _____________, compensable injury. We will reverse a factual determination of a hearing officer only if that determination is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); Pool v. Ford Motor Company, 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). Applying this standard of review to the record of this case, we decline to substitute our opinion of the evidence for that of the hearing officer.

We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.

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

SUPERINTENDENT

(ADDRESS)

(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).

Margaret L. Turner

CONCUR:

Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge

Veronica L. Ruberto – Appeals Judge