This appeal arises under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 8308-1.01 et seq. (Vernon Supp. 1993) (1989 Act). On April 13, 1993, a contested case hearing was held in (city), Texas, with (hearing officer) presiding, to determine whether the respondent (claimant) was injured in the course and scope of her employment. Finding among other things that on (date of injury), claimant injured her left thumb and cervical spine when she pulled a garment from a bundle to inspect it while working in the (employer) plant, the hearing officer concluded that claimant sustained compensable injuries to her left thumb and cervical spine on that date. The appellant (carrier) challenges the evidentiary basis for certain of the factual findings and legal conclusions relating to claimant’s having sustained compensable injuries on (date of injury). Claimant filed no response to the carrier’s request for review.
DECISION
Finding the evidence sufficient to support the challenged findings and conclusions, we affirm.
The following findings and conclusions are challenged in this appeal:
FINDINGS OF FACT
7.On 02-21-91, as she attempted to pull a garment from its bundle, the motion suddenly bent CLAIMANT’S left thumb backwards and the recoil motion caused her hand to be flung over he (sic) left shoulder.
8.The 02-21-91 pulling incident caused a “pop” in CLAIMANT’S left thumb and her left shoulder/neck area. An immediate severe pain, which started in CLAIMANT’S left thumb, radiated through her left arm to the area of her shoulder and neck.
9.CLAIMANT suffered an injury to her left thumb and her cervical spine in the 02-21-91 garment pulling incident.
10.This injury caused CLAIMANT to make on (sic) $4.25 per hour average instead of the $4.50 per hour average which she earned prior to the 02-21-91 injury.
11.CLAIMANT continued to work in pain from 02-21-91 through 08-06-92, when the pain in her left hand, arm and neck became so intense that she had to request that EMPLOYER send her for medical treatment.
12.The constant, rapid, repetitive pulling motions of her job as a garment inspector and the 02-21-91 traumatic garment-pulling incident caused injuries to CLAIMANT’S cervical spine.
13.EMPLOYER terminated CLAIMANT’s employment on 08-23-92 (sic) when the plant manager, due to a translation problem, mistakenly thought CLAIMANT was threatening to stage an injury if he did not reassign her to duties not involving sewing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
2.CLAIMANT’S left thumb and cervical spine were injured in the course and scope of her employment on 02-21-91.
3.CLAIMANT has had disability since 02-21-91 due to the injuries incurred on that date.
4.CLAIMANT’S injuries are compensable under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act.
Claimant had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury and the burden was not on the carrier to prove that the injury did not occur as claimant contended. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936, 939 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). The carrier’s argument at the close of the evidence centered on claimant’s credibility and the carrier pointed to certain conflicts between claimant’s testimony and that of a coworker, (Ms. M), who interpreted Spanish for employer, (Ms. J), claimant’s supervisor, and (Mr. B), employer’s plant manager, as well as to conflicting information in employer’s various accident reports. Much of the apparently conflicting testimony dealt with such matters as claimant’s selling glassware and tamales for extra income and her carrying of boxes of these items, with her efforts to get a summer job with employer for two of her sons and whether she threatened another job-related injury if her sons were not hired, and with whether employer failed to obtain medical care for her for 1983 and 1984 job-related injuries because she was then an illegal alien. However, the hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Article 8308-6.34(e)) and as the fact finder resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence, both real and imagined. We do not substitute our judgment for that of the hearing officer where the challenged findings are supported by sufficient evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Alcantara, 764 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1989, no writ).
On appeal, the carrier attacks the sufficiency of the evidence and essentially concentrates on the absence of corroboration in claimant’s medical records (for the February – April 1991 period) of the work-related incident and ensuing injuries as testified to by the claimant and as described in the challenged findings. Claimant testified that she had pain in her thumb which radiated up her left arm and into her neck and that she provided that information to her doctors through translators. She intimated that translation inaccuracies could account for an absence of references to her arm and neck pain in those medical records. Be that as it may, corroboration in medical records of the occurrence of a work-related injury is not required in order for the claimant to meet her burden of proving she sustained a compensable injury, and this was not a case where there was in issue a question of causation which required expert evidence.
Claimant did not speak English and her communications with doctors, her supervisor, and the plant manager respecting her injuries and related matters were translated by coworkers. Claimant apparently worked for employer at different times and her duties varied from time to time but included the sewing of children’s garments, as well as the packaging and inspecting of employer’s products. In January 1984, claimant’s left thumb was smashed by a machine and she eventually lost the thumbnail. She lost no time from work and said she was not provided with medical care for that injury, as well as an injury involving a punctured ear in October 1983, because she was then an illegal alien. Mr. B denied that employer knew she was an illegal alien and that she was denied medical care.
On February 1991, a date claimant reconstructed from the date on her medicine bottle, she said that while inspecting childrens’ sleepwear, a task which entailed her having to very quickly pull garment sleeves and legs out of a tightly packed bundle to inspect them, her left thumb was pulled back and it “popped” and hurt all the way up her arm to her neck. She said her neck “popped” also. She said she advised Ms. J of the accident and that Mr. B then sent her to (Dr. P), who apparently was employer’s doctor. Dr. P’s report of (date of injury), stated that claimant related through an interpreter that while she had no problem with her packaging duties, her having to pull with her left hand and grasp with her thumb and fingers when inspecting “aggravated” her left thumb and caused pain. This report made no mention of claimant’s having pain in her arm and neck, however. Dr. P’s March 21, 1991, report noted that claimant continued to aggravate her thumb at work and have pain. He diagnosed extensor pollicis longus tendinitis and prescribed two weeks of rest, a splint, and medication. His April 5, 1991, report stated that claimant was pain free, but he continued the medication and use of the splint.
After (date of injury), claimant never missed work because of her injury until September 23, 1992, when she said Mr. B terminated her employment. She felt she was fired because of her injury. Mr. B said he terminated claimant because he understood from the translator that claimant threatened to “get hurt again” if her duties were not changed. He also understood that claimant threatened to have another injury if her two sons did not get summer jobs in 1992. Claimant denied such and her testimony indicated, with some corroboration from Ms. M who translated, that she was trying to communicate that being required to perform duties other than packaging, for which she used mainly her right hand, would exacerbate her injury. A medical report of September 10, 1992, suggested she be kept in packaging rather than in a sewing position. She said she has not worked since September 23rd as no one will hire her when she can only work with one hand. After her February 1991 injury, she was only able to work very slowly and with pain medication, her productivity went down to the minimum, she never afterwards made more than the minimum of $4.25 an hour whereas before the injury she said she averaged $4.80 per hour. With regard to Findings of Fact Nos. 10 and 13, and Conclusion of Law No. 4, which relate to claimant’s having disability (as does Finding of Fact No. 14 which is not challenged on appeal), while we find sufficient evidence to support such in claimant’s testimony, unrefuted in certain relevant respects, we note there was no disputed issue concerning disability before the hearing officer and thus those particular findings and that conclusion were unnecessary to a decision on the sole disputed issue.
While continuing to work after her (date of injury), injury, claimant’s pain worsened, depending on the nature of her duties, and, in August 1992, she again sought medical care since she could no longer stand the pain. Claimant said she did not have medical care for a long time during the period from April 1991 to August 1992 because she feared Mr. B would fire her. According to an August 4, 1992, report of (Dr. L), who practiced with Dr. P, claimant may have exacerbated the extensor pollicis longus tendinitis for which she was last seen on April 5, 1991. This report did reflect that claimant complained of pain “from her left thumb radiating all the way up to the left side of her neck.” She was placed in a thumb splint and shoulder sling and limited to working with her right arm. Dr. P’s August 19, 1992, report noted that while claimant’s wrist and forearm pain was improved, she had continued discomfort in her neck and upper thoracic area with spasm. In a report of September 23, 1992, the date claimant said she was terminated, Dr. L stated that claimant was again having discomfort in her left forearm, upper arm, and shoulder which she advised was “very much like what she was seeing [Dr. P] for on 04-05-91.” Dr. L stated he would refer claimant to orthopedics for a second opinion. In his referral note of September 23rd to (Dr. W), Dr. L said that claimant had a recurrence of the left extensor pollicis longus strain/inflammation associated with sewing, and that Dr. P had treated her for a similar problem in April 1991. An MRI report of November 5, 1992, revealed a disc protrusion at C5/6 and effacement of the anterior subarachnoid space at the C3/4 level. Dr. L, a neurosurgeon, reported on December 17, 1992, to Dr. W that claimant “has a left C6 radiculopathy secondary to a left C5-6 herniated disc.”
Though not obligated to accept the testimony of a claimant, an interested witness, at face value, issues of injury and disability may be established by the testimony of a claimant alone. We are satisfied the challenged findings and conclusions in this case are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93154, decided April 14, 1993.
The decision of the hearing officer is affirmed.
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Joe Sebesta – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge