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 11, 2001. The hearing officer determined that: (1) the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on __________; (2) the claimant had disability from __________, through April 11, 2001; and (3) the claimant timely notified his employer of a work-related injury and the appellant (carrier) is not relieved of liability for this claim. The carrier appeals the hearing officer’s determinations. Specifically, the carrier appeals the hearing officer’s injury and notice determinations on sufficiency grounds, but made no specific argument with regard to disability. The claimant urges affirmance of the hearing officer’s decision.
DECISION
Affirmed.
Compensable Injury
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on __________. The claimant had the burden to prove that he sustained damage or harm to his lower back on __________, arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91028, decided October 23, 1991. There was conflicting evidence presented with regard to this issue. The hearing officer apparently found the claimant’s version of the circumstances of the injury more credible than the contradictory evidence. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)) and, as the trier of fact, resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence including the medical evidence (Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ)). The Appeals Panel, an appellate-reviewing tribunal, 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 so in this case. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951).
Disability
In the absence of a specific argument with regard to disability, we read the carrier’s appeal to assert that the claimant did not have disability because he did not sustain a compensable injury. In view of our decision above, the hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant had disability from __________, through April 11, 2001.
Notice of Injury
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant timely notified his employer of a work-related injury and the carrier is not relieved from liability for this claim. The carrier’s appeal on this issue lacks merit. The carrier stipulated at the hearing that the “claimant did report an injury to the employer within 30 days.” Pursuant to Section 410.166, a written stipulation or agreement of the parties that is filed in the record or an oral stipulation or agreement that is preserved in the record is final and binding. In view of stipulation, the hearing officer properly concluded, pursuant to Section 409.002, that the carrier is not relieved from liability for this claim for failure to timely notify.
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
Michael B. McShane
CONCUR:
Judy L.S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge