This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on March 8, 1999. The issues at the CCH were did the appellant (claimant) sustain a compensable injury on ______, and did the claimant have disability. The hearing officer determined that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury and did not have disability. The claimant appeals, urging that she sustained an injury on ______, had disability, and requests that the hearing officer’s decision be reversed. The respondent (self-insured) responds that the hearing officer’s decision is correct, supported by the evidence, and should be affirmed.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant testified that she sustained an injury on ______, while performing her duties as a housekeeper for employer. The claimant testified that on ______, her supervisor, Ms. T, assigned her to make 35 beds on the second floor. According to the claimant, she went to the first floor to get the linen cart at approximately 1:00 p.m., which had been left outside a locked cage by Ms. T. The claimant testified that she pulled the linen cart down a ramp and it got away from her, hitting her left arm, and injuring her left arm, shoulder, neck, and upper back. The claimant testified that following the injury, she took the linen cart to the second floor and then left at the end of her shift, 3:00 p.m. The claimant worked for 1.5 hours on December 31, 1998, and testified that she did not report the injury to her employer until January 4, 1999. The claimant stated that she did not report the injury on ______, because she did not think anything about it and it was the holidays. The claimant testified that she has been unable to work as a result of the injury from January 4, 1999, through the date of the CCH.
The claimant testified that she sought medical treatment on January 4, 1999. The claimant sought medical treatment with Dr. M on January 8, 1999, and then the claimant changed treating doctors and was treated by Dr. H, on January 15, 1999. Dr. H diagnosed the claimant with cervical sprain/strain, cervical radiculitis, contusion, left upper extremity, post traumatic impingement-left shoulder, and cervical and left shoulder myofascitis. In a report dated February 17, 1999, Dr. H states “[t]he patient’s injury is consistant [sic] with the mechanism of injury that occurred [sic] at work on _________. With reasonable medical probability, the patient sustained injury to her neck, left shoulder, and left upper extremity as a result of the work related accident that occurred on _________.”
The evidence presented was contradictory. The claimant presented written statements from coworkers to support her position. The self-insured presented the testimony of two witnesses, Mr. D and Ms. T, to support its position that the claimant did not sustain an injury on ______, while moving the linen cart. Mr. D was the claimant’s supervisor on ______, during the claimant’s entire shift. Mr. D testified that the linen arrived at approximately 3:00 p.m., he locked up the linen cart in the cage around 4:00 p.m., and both he and Ms. T moved the linen cart from the first floor to the second floor between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Mr. D testified that he did not see the claimant on ______, but he saw the claimant on December 31, 1998, and the claimant did not appear to be injured.
Ms. T was also the claimant’s supervisor on ______. Ms. T testified that on the morning of ______, she told the claimant about a special project, making up 35 beds on the second floor. Ms. T testified that on ______, she and Mr. D secured the linen in the cage after it arrived. Ms. T stated that she showed the claimant the linen and left the cart outside the cage. According to Ms. T, the claimant did not come and get the linen and she and Mr. D took the linen cart to the second floor between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Ms. T testified that at approximately 2:00 p.m. she had a conversation with the claimant and the claimant stated that she had not made any beds. Ms. T stated that during the conversation the claimant did not report an injury and the claimant did not look injured.
The claimant asserts on appeal that because there is no medical evidence to controvert the doctors, the injury has been proven as a matter of law. The claimant also asserts that the self-insured bears the burden to prove that a preexisting or subsequent injury is the sole cause of disability. These arguments incorrectly attempt to shift the burden of proof to the self-insured to disprove an injury. The claimant had the burden to prove that she sustained the claimed injury on ______, and that she had disability as that term is defined in Section 401.011(16). Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 94248, decided April 12, 1994. The Appeals Panel has stated that in workers’ compensation cases, the disputed issues of injury and disability can, generally, be established by the lay testimony of the claimant alone. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91124, decided February 12, 1992. However, the testimony of a claimant, as an interested party, only raises issues of fact for the hearing officer to resolve and is not binding on the hearing officer. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Burrell, 564 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
The hearing officer was the sole judge of the weight and credibility to be given the evidence. Section 410.165(a). He resolved contradictions in the evidence against the claimant and found that the claimant did not injure herself while moving or attempting to move linen on ______, while at work for employer. The claimant asserts that the Appeals Panel should decide in her favor, based on the law and evidence. The evidence in this case was in conflict and subject to varying inferences and conclusions. We decline to reweigh this evidence on appeal, but consistent with our standard of review, we will reverse such decision only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly 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). We find there was sufficient evidence to support the determination of the hearing officer that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on ______.
The claimant appealed the hearing officer’s finding of no disability. Disability is defined as “the inability because of a compensable injury to obtain and retain employment at wages equivalent to the preinjury wage.” Section 401.011(16). Since we have found the evidence to be sufficient to sustain the determination of the hearing officer that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, the claimant cannot have disability under the 1989 Act. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92640, decided January 14, 1993.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
Dorian E. Ramirez – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Stark O. Sanders, Jr. – Chief Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge