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 6, 2001. With regard to the issues before her, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) had not sustained a compensable injury on __________, and that the claimant did not have disability.
The claimant appealed, asserting that he had sustained a compensable injury when Cresol spilled on his scrotum and arm and when he was dropped from a hospital gurney while being treated for the alleged chemical burn injury. The respondent (carrier) responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer, in a detailed Statement of the Evidence and discussion, summarized the evidence and discussed her rationale regarding her decision. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)), resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence (Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ)), including the medical evidence (Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ)), and determines what facts have been established from the conflicting evidence. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Escalera, 385 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.). 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 and 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).
In that we are affirming the hearing officer’s decision that the claimant did not have a compensable chemical burn injury, we are also affirming the determinations that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury in the fall from the gurney, which arose out of the alleged chemical burn injury, and that the claimant did not have disability.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge