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 September 7, 1999, in______, Texas, with _________presiding as hearing officer. The issue at the CCH was whether the compensable injury of _________, extended to the respondent’s (claimant) lumbar sprain/strain, and right arm, elbow and thumb. The hearing officer found that the compensable injury of _________, did not extend to the lumbar sprain/strain, right arm and right elbow, but that it did extend to the right thumb (trigger thumb). The appellant (carrier) appeals only the determination that the claimant’s compensable injury extended to the right thumb (trigger thumb), urging that the overwhelming evidence supports that the compensable injury did not extend to include the right thumb (trigger thumb). The claimant responds that there is sufficient evidence to support the factual finding and conclusion of the hearing officer and asks that the decision be affirmed.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The Decision and Order of the hearing officer sets forth fairly and adequately the pertinent evidence in the case and it will only be outlined here insofar as it relates to the right thumb. Initially, we note that the decision indicates the claimant stopped work on________, and we conclude that is a typographical error, as the evidence shows the date was_________. The claimant, who worked some 13 days for the employer, testified that she experienced severe hand pain from working with pliers some several thousand times a day. Initially, indications were pain in her hand and wrist area, although it expanded to her elbow and back. In any event, she was seen by several doctors and was eventually diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) for which she underwent right endoscopic carpal tunnel release in_________. Claimant states she continued to have pain in her hand after her surgery (and other areas not relevant here), that her surgeon eventually diagnosed trigger thumb and related it to her work injury, and told her it needed to be released to relieve her symptoms. A medical report of April 14, 1999, from the surgeon states:
IMPRESSION: Impression is right trigger thumb. I believe this has been causing her her [sic] entire problem; however, this is the first time she’s actually localized to the FPL sheath. I have caused her significant discomfort from the palpation; however, once she agreed to an injection, her pain was completely resolved and her grip strength increased to 60 pounds on the right.
The surgeon’s treatment plan was to continue a neoprene splint and see the claimant in follow-up. He noted at that time that further injections may be necessary.
Carrier, citing that it was almost two years before a trigger thumb injury was asserted, argues that the overwhelming evidence is contrary to the finding of the hearing officer. In this regard, we note that the claimant had complaints of pain and symptoms in her right hand basically from the outset, that she underwent surgery for CTS, and that she subsequently experienced the problems and pain with her thumb. The surgeon diagnosed trigger thumb and related it to her work injury. This is clearly evidence in support of the hearing officer’s findings. After our review of all the evidence of record we cannot conclude that the finding and conclusion of the hearing officer regarding a thumb injury was so against the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be wrong or unjust or to otherwise justify reversal of her decision. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); Pool v. Ford Motor Company, 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). Accordingly, the decision and order are affirmed.
Stark O. Sanders, Jr. – Chief Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
Tommy W. Lueders – Appeals Judge