This appeal arises under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (1989 Act), TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001, et seq. On May 13 and November 19, 1993, a contested case hearing was held in (city), Texas, with (hearing officer) presiding. She determined that appellant (claimant) did not show that her back problem was caused by her injury at work on (date of injury). Claimant asserts that portions of the Statement of Evidence are inaccurate and that the decision is wrong. She states that she complained of a back injury after the (date of injury), accident and that the decision is contrary to the evidence. Respondent (self-insured) replied that the evidence sufficiently supported the hearing officer.
DECISION
We affirm.
Claimant is a clerk with many years of employment with (employer). On (date), she testified that she fell from a chair at work. The parties stipulated that she hurt her head at the time. Claimant testified that she told her supervisor she hit her tailbone; the supervisor took her that day to the emergency room where she saw (Dr. M). He noted that claimant’s chair rolled out from under her at work. “She tells me that she fell back and lightly hit the back of her head.” There was no reference to claimant’s back. Claimant said that she saw her obstetrician (Dr. C) the next day, (date). A document of Dr C’s, dated May 3, 1993, indicates that on (date), his progress notes showed claimant came to his office complaining of a fall at work on (date of injury). Claimant reported her chair rolled out from under her, she fell to the floor and “stated that she hit her head in the process.” She also said that she had more pain in her neck the next morning. Dr. C then refers to a note of claimant visiting him on April 8, 1992, after she “bent over to pick up shoes and felt a pull on the left side of the pelvic area” on (date). He then diagnosed a pelvic strain and referred claimant to (Dr. S).
Claimant’s supervisor, (JW) testified that she took claimant to the ER on (date of injury). She stated that another employee had started to complete an “employee accident report” on behalf of claimant, but she finished the report when she was contacted. She wrote that claimant fell while attempting to sit in a chair and “employee hit her head.” JW testified that the description of the accident she wrote down was given to her by claimant at the time. Claimant signed the form. JW also testified that claimant called the next day complaining of a headache and said she was going to the doctor. JW then said that Dr. C provided a note which claimant brought in on (date), relating to her head. JW said she had no complaint of low back pain from claimant prior to April 8, 1992.
Dr. S’s note of April 17, 1992, states that claimant reported to him that she “was putting on shoes when felt a pop on her back” about 10 days before this visit. Dr. S also recorded, “[h]ad immediate pain (lower back and left) leg.” He noted that on April 12th she had gone to an emergency room with increased lower back and left leg pain.
Claimant testified that the “pop” she felt in her back on (date) was while putting on her shoes at work. We note that while both Dr. M and Dr. C specify that the head injury of (date of injury) was at work, neither Dr. C nor Dr. S in their notes, when visited after the (date) “pop,” states that claimant’s incident with her shoes occurred at work. At any rate, claimant agreed that she did not report the incident of (date), to employer.
Claimant offered a statement by Dr. C, dated October 9, 1993, which said that on (date), claimant had visited him complaining of falling from a chair at work in which “she did not strike any blow to her head. She did have discomfort in the muscles along the back.” In addition, Dr. S, in a letter of October 21, 1993, stated that claimant had called his office on October 19, 1993, to question the history taken of her visit on April 17, 1992. Dr. S then merely stated what assertion claimant was now making as to what the history should have been at the time–a fall on her buttocks on (date of injury) causing her to have low back pain. (Claimant had back surgery of a herniated disc on May 6, 1992.)
Claimant makes several distinctions in attacking the hearing officer’s Statement of Evidence. She says that she did not mean to stipulate that she injured her head, that while Dr. M said she had no complaints, he “anticipated” complaints, that she called and told her employer on (date) she had to go to the doctor for back pain and saw Dr. C on (date) for back pain, and that medical billings should not be determinative of her case. In Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93791, decided October 18, 1993, an attack on the hearing officer’s discussion of the evidence was considered. That appeal stated that the hearing officer was not required to recite the facts since the 1989 Act only requires findings of fact, conclusions of law, whether benefits are due, and an award of benefits due. A statement of evidence, if made, only needs to reasonably reflect the record. Each area that the hearing officer addressed in the Statement of Evidence is supported in the record. The hearing officer could choose to recite evidence consistent with Dr. C’s note of (date), as opposed to Dr. C’s note of 1993 about the same visit on (date). The Statement of Evidence reasonably reflects the evidence of record.
Claimant also says that the decision is against the great weight of the evidence. While the time frame from the date of a compensable injury to the first medical entry of injury to another particular area of the body is not great, it does raise a question of causation for the hearing officer as finder of fact to decide. In Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92617, decided January 14, 1993, and Texas Workers’ Compensation Appeal No. 93086, decided March 17, 1993, the hearing officer’s decision that an injury which did not promptly follow an event was not shown to be compensable was affirmed. Compare Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92503, decided October 23, 1992. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the evidence. See Section 410.165.
In addition, the appeals panel cases cited above did not have a documented subsequent incident that was cited in medical records at the time as the basis for the injury in question (low back pain). The evidence was sufficient for the hearing officer to conclude that claimant did not complain prior to (date), when she had a problem with her shoes, that she had hurt her low back. The delay in reporting such a problem coupled with the (date), incident sufficiently support the hearing officer’s determination that claimant did not show that her low back injury was caused by the (date of injury), compensable injury. The fact that claimant can interpret certain medical evidence as supportive of a different result does not provide a sufficient basis to overturn the decision of the hearing officer. The appeals panel will only reverse the decision of the hearing officer based on factual determinations when the decision is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. See In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951). In this case the great weight of the evidence is not against the decision of the hearing officer, and it is affirmed.
Joe Sebesta – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Stark O. Sanders, Jr. – Chief Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge