Title: 

APD 010895

Significant Decision

Date: 

May 24, 2001

Issues: 

Disabilty/Existence-Duration, Existence of Compensable Inj

Table of Contents

APD 010895

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 March 29, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury and did not have disability. On appeal, the claimant asserts that these determinations are not supported by the evidence. The appeals file contains no response from the respondent (carrier).

DECISION

Affirmed.

A “compensable injury” means “an injury that arises out of and in the course and scope of employment for which compensation is payable under this subtitle.” Section 401.011(10). The claimant had the burden to prove he was injured in the course and scope of his employment. Reed v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 535 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.). “Disability” is defined as “the inability because of a compensable injury to obtain and retain employment at wages equivalent to the preinjury wage.” Section 401.011(16).

In the present case, there was evidence that the claimant was actually injured on another job. The hearing officer determined that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury and, consequently, did not have disability. 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 hearing officer may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness. Aetna Insurance Company v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, no writ). Where there are conflicts in the evidence, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts and determines what facts the evidence has established. The Appeals Panel will not disturb the challenged factual findings of a hearing officer unless they are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust and we do not find them to be so in this case. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 224 S.W.2d 660 (1951).

The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.

Gary L. Kilgore

CONCUR:

Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge

Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge