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 27, 2000. The hearing officer determined that appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury and that he did not have disability. The hearing officer also determined that claimant did not have good cause for his failure to appear at the prior hearing that took place on August 15, 2000. Claimant appealed the injury and disability determinations on sufficiency grounds. Claimant also contends that the hearing officer should have found good cause for his failure to appear. Respondent (carrier) responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
DECISION
We affirm.
Claimant contends the hearing officer abused his discretion in failing to find good cause for claimant’s failure to appear at the June 27, 2000, hearing. Claimant testified at the August 15, 2000, hearing, that he did not appear at the first hearing because he left to go see his father in Mexico, because his father was very ill. The hearing officer judged the credibility of this evidence and determined what facts were established. The hearing officer determined that claimant’s testimony was not persuasive. We conclude that claimant has not shown that the hearing officer abused his discretion in finding that he did not have good cause for failing to appear at the first hearing. Section 410.156. In any case, another hearing was held and claimant was permitted to put on evidence regarding the issues in this case. The claimed error, if any, did not affect the decision on the issues of injury and disability.
Claimant contends the hearing officer erred in determining that he did not sustain a compensable injury and that he did not have disability. Claimant asserts that: (1) he was never terminated by his employer; (2) he hit his head on the scaffold and sustained an injury as he described at the hearing; and (3) Dr. D took him off work for the injury. The hearing officer discussed the evidence in his decision. The applicable law regarding injury and disability issues and our standard of review are set forth in Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 001819, decided September 18, 2000.
The matters claimant raises in his brief involved credibility and fact issues, which the hearing officer resolved. A review of the decision and order indicates that the hearing officer did not believe claimant’s testimony that he sustained an injury on ________. The hearing officer specifically stated that claimant’s testimony was not persuasive. The hearing officer was acting within his province as fact finder in deciding what evidence was credible. After reviewing the evidence, we conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). Because claimant did not have a compensable injury, he did not have disability. Disability, by definition, requires that there must have been a compensable injury.
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
Judy L. Stephens
CONCUR:
Kenneth A. Huchton – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge