This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing was held on February 2, 1999. He determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury and that he did not have disability. Claimant appeals these determinations on sufficiency grounds. Respondent (carrier) responds that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
DECISION
We affirm.
Claimant first contends the hearing officer erred in determining that he did not sustain a compensable injury. The claimant in a workers’ compensation case has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she sustained a compensable injury in the course and scope of employment. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). The 1989 Act defines “injury” as damage or harm to the physical structure of the body and as disease or infection naturally resulting from the damage or harm. Section 401.011(26). A claimant may meet his burden to establish an injury through his own testimony, if the hearing officer finds the testimony credible. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92083, decided April 16, 1992.
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 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); Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 950456, decided May 9, 1995.
Claimant testified that he was working on an oil rig on _______, when he felt a pull in his back while picking up a pipe. He said he told the driller, Mr. S, about the injury right away, but that Mr. S said he did not want to report the injury. Claimant said Mr. S indicated that if everyone had to undergo a drug screen, then some might fail and lose their jobs. Mr. S stated that he did not recall claimant reporting an injury. Mr. S said claimant had been terminated on _______, and that he was chosen for a layoff because he was lowest in seniority ranks. An MRI report stated that claimant had a disc protrusion at L4-5 that compressed the thecal sac. There was medical evidence from Dr. D, that claimant was diagnosed with low back pain and sciatica, and that he was taken off work. Claimant said he underwent therapy and treatment with epidural injections, but said that he still has continued pain and cannot work.
The hearing officer was the judge of the credibility of the witnesses and medical evidence. As the fact finder, he considered the issue of whether claimant sustained a compensable back injury on _______, and resolved this issue against claimant. The hearing officer stated that he did not find claimant’s testimony to be credible. Claimant contends the medical evidence establishes an injury, but the hearing officer was the sole judge of the credibility of the medical evidence and he determined that claimant did not sustain a compensable injury as he described. We will not substitute our judgment for his regarding credibility because the hearing officer’s determination is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain, supra. Given our standard of review we will not overturn the hearing officer’s decision. Id.
Claimant complains that the hearing officer created a Anew requirement and required that claimant notify his coworkers of an injury. The hearing officer was entitled to consider all of the evidence in this case, including the evidence regarding whether claimant mentioned an injury to his coworkers. Our review of this decision and order does not indicate that the hearing officer created a Anew requirement in this case. The hearing officer was also entitled to consider evidence regarding whether claimant was angry about his termination. This was a factor the hearing officer could consider in making his determinations. We perceive no error.
Claimant contends the hearing officer erred in determining that he did not have disability. Claimant contends there was evidence of disability from Dr. D. However, disability means the “inability because of a compensable injury to obtain and retain employment at wages equivalent to the preinjury wage.” Section 401.011(16). Because there was no compensable injury, there can be no disability.
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
Judy Stephens – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Tommy W. Lueders – Appeals Judge