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 June 26, 2000. The hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a low back injury in the course and scope of her employment on __________, and had disability beginning February 5 and continuing through February 11, 2000, and beginning February 14, 2000, and continuing through the date of the CCH. The appellant (carrier) appealed, urged that the determinations of the hearing officer are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly wrong and unjust, and requested that the Appeals Panel reverse the decision of the hearing officer and render a decision in its favor. A response from the claimant has not been received.
DECISION
We affirm.
The Decision and Order of the hearing officer contains a statement of the evidence that includes quotations from medical records and a report filed by Mr. B, the employer’s safety coordinator. The claimant saw several doctors in a short period of time. Medical records in February 2000 indicate that the claimant has had low back problems for some time; that in February 2000 she related her back problems to heavy lifting at work; and that a report of an MRI dated February 16, 2000, indicates a diffuse annular bulge at L4-5. The report, dated February 21, 2000, and completed by Mr. B, states that the claimant said that her back was hurting before she went to work on __________, and that her back got worse during the day. The report does not indicate that she said anything about lifting a box of apples. A medical report dated March 24, 2000, indicates that the claimant reported that she injured her back moving a box of apples. The claimant testified that she told all of the doctors and Mr. B about lifting the box of apples and that she did not know why lifting a box of apples is not included in early reports of doctors she saw or in the report completed by Mr. B. The claimant contended that there was another report completed by Mr. B that she signed. Mr. B testified that there was only one report.
The hearing officer is the trier of fact and is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence and of the weight and credibility to be given to the evidence. Section 410.165(a). The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of any witness’s testimony because the finder of fact judges the credibility of each and every witness, determines the weight to assign to each witness’s testimony, and resolves conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony. Taylor v. Lewis, 553 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93426, decided July 5, 1993. This is equally true regarding medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). In his Decision and Order, the hearing officer stated that while the claimant may not have provided an accurate history of her injury to initial medical care providers, the absence of such a history did not defeat her claim for compensation. He also said that he found the claimant to be a credible witness and that she aggravated a preexisting condition. An appeals level body is not a fact finder and it does not normally pass upon the credibility of witnesses or substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of fact even if the evidence would support a different result. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Soto, 819 S.W.2d 619, 620 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1991, writ denied). That different factual determinations could have been made based on the same evidence is not a sufficient basis to overturn factual determinations of a hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 94466, decided May 25, 1994. The hearing officer’s determinations concerning injury in the course and scope of employment and disability are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951); Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). Since we find the evidence sufficient to support the determinations of the hearing officer, we will not substitute our judgment for his. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 94044, decided February 17, 1994.
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
Tommy W. Lueders – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Alan C. Ernst – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge