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 April 26, 1999. She (hearing officer) determined that 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 back injury on ________. 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 Adamage or harm to the physical structure of the body and a 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.
The facts of this case are adequately summarized by the hearing officer in the decision and order. Briefly, claimant testified that he worked as a forklift driver for (employer) in December 1998. He said he was sweeping in an icy area when he slipped and fell onto his hip, injuring his back. There was evidence that claimant had recently seen a chiropractor for back problems at the time he said he slipped and fell at work.
The hearing officer was the judge of the credibility of the witnesses and medical evidence. As the fact finder, she considered the issue of whether claimant sustained a back injury on ________, and resolved this issue against claimant. We will not substitute our judgment for hers in that regard 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 contends the hearing officer erred in determining that he did not have disability. 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
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge