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 6, 2000. The issues at the CCH were whether the appellant (claimant) had sustained a compensable injury on __________, and whether the claimant had disability resulting from the claimed injury. The hearing officer determined that the claimant had not sustained an injury in the course and scope of employment, that the claimed injury was not compensable, and that the claimant did not have disability. The claimant appealed, asserting that he was a credible witness and that the hearing officer’s decision was against the great weight of the evidence. The respondent (carrier) replied that the hearing officer’s decision was supported by the evidence and requested that we affirm the decision.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant presented evidence that he contends proves that he sustained a low back injury while pushing a cart in the performance of his normal job. The existence of an injury is not disputed. However, the carrier presented evidence that it contends shows that the claimant did not sustain the injury at work as alleged. The hearing officer did not find the claimant to be a credible witness and determined that the claimant did not sustain an injury in the course and scope of employment as alleged.
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). While a claimant’s testimony alone may be sufficient to prove an injury, the testimony of a claimant is not conclusive but only raises a factual issue for the trier of fact. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91065, decided December 16, 1991. The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of any witness’s 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. Where there are conflicts in the evidence, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts and determines what facts the evidence has established. As an appeals body, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the hearing officer when the determination is not so against the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 950456, decided May 9, 1995. Only were we to conclude, which we do not in this case, that the hearing officer’s determinations were so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust would there be a sound basis to disturb those determinations. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951); Pool v. Ford Motor Company, 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.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
Kenneth A. Huchton – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge