This appeal arises under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act of 1989 (1989 Act), TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. arts. 8308-1.01 through 11.10 (Vernon Supp. 1992). On April 24, 1992, a contested case hearing was held in (city), Texas, with (hearing officer) presiding. He determined that the claimant, appellant herein, was not injured on (date) in the course of employment. Appellant asserts that the decision is contrary to the evidence and that depositions and medical records of two doctors show that she sustained an injury.
DECISION
Finding that the decision is sufficiently supported by evidence of record, we affirm.
Appellant had been a laboratory supervisor for (employer) for four months when she reported that she tripped and fell in the lab at the end of the day. No one saw the fall. She stated she hit her nose on a cubicle in the course of her fall, face down, on the floor. Her nephew, (SW) did not see the fall but was waiting nearby and rushed to her assistance. She reported that her nose, back, neck, shoulders, legs, and arms were all harmed by the fall. She reported the accident the next day and went to a hospital that day where she was told that her swelling would recede.
Since (date), appellant has fallen at least once, on (date of injury), on stairs at her apartment complex. Prior to (date), she had approximately six injury claims with one in 1989, in which she fell out of a chair, resulting in injury to her back, neck, and shoulder. She was convicted of welfare fraud in 1985 and theft by check in 1988. (The record of the latter conviction shows that 25 checks were involved and that appellant was sentenced to seven years confinement.) She did not list all prior claims she had made when asked that question on written interrogatories.
Depositions of two orthopaedic surgeons, (Dr. N) and (Dr. W), along with their medical records and letters, show that an MRI, accomplished between the (date) report of a fall and the (date of injury) report of a fall, reflected no significant abnormality. An MRI done thereafter in (date) showed a bulging disc. In addition, Dr. W stated that problems he saw after (date of injury) in appellant could have been caused by the subsequent trauma. Dr. W added, however, that disc herniation frequently happens without trauma. Dr. W also stated in his interrogatory that if appellant lied in her history to him, his conclusions would be “rather useless.” Dr. N was of the opinion that appellant’s disability was based on the 1989 and (date) falls but acknowledged that he was not aware of later falls so could not say to what extent these facts would change his opinion.
Both appellant’s son and nephew live with her and each testified that she did no heavy lifting after the (month) report of a fall and believe she is hurt and cannot work.
The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of evidence. Article 8308-6.34(e) of the 1989 Act. Based on appellant’s failure to fully disclose information requested on written interrogatories and her past felony conviction in 1988, he could doubt her credibility. Medical evidence could be interpreted as providing no support for her allegation of an injury on the job. (No MRI data showed injury after the allegation in question but before her next fall, one doctor did not consider later falls not disclosed to him, and another doctor said his conclusions meant nothing if based on lies by the patient.) The hearing officer as trier of fact may believe all, some or none of what a witness testifies; the trier of fact judges credibility and resolves inconsistencies. Ashcraft v. United Supermarkets, Inc., 758 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1988, writ denied). The appeals panel will not interfere with the trier of fact’s resolution of conflicts in the evidence or pass on the weight or credibility of a witness’ testimony; unless a factual decision is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, it will not be disturbed by this panel. Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Diaz, 750 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1988, writ denied). The evidence was sufficient to support the decision of the hearing officer.
We affirm.
Joe Sebesta – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Stark O. Sanders, Jr. – Chief Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge