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 July 25, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the respondent’s (claimant) compensable left hand and wrist injury extends to and includes the lumbar spine but does not extend to or include the cervical spine. The hearing officer’s determination that the compensable injury does not include the cervical spine has not been appealed and will not be discussed further.
The appellant (carrier) appeals, contending that the hearing officer’s decision is not supported by sufficient evidence, relying heavily on the report of Dr. L. The claimant responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant was employed as a welder, and it is relatively undisputed that on ___________, the claimant sustained a compensable left hand and wrist injury when he was carrying one end of a heavy steel beam and stepped into a hole. The depth of the hole is disputed and evidence indicates that it was anywhere from 12 inches to 30 inches deep. The claimant finished work on _____________, and showed up to work on ____________, but left early, at around noon. The reason why the claimant left early is in dispute. The claimant did not work on ___________, but came in on __________, collected his paycheck and left. The claimant then consulted an attorney and was referred to Dr. Y, a chiropractor, who, in a report of October 6, 2000, diagnosed, among other things, a lumbar contusion, lumbar sprain/strain, and “rule out lumbar disk herniation.” The claimant went to a hospital emergency room on October 7, 2000, with complaints of low back pain. An MRI performed on November 30, 2000, indicates disc bulges and protrusions at L1-2, L4-5, and L5-S1. Subsequent reports from Dr. Y have an impression of lumbar disc protrusions and lumbar radiculopathy.
The carrier relies on a report, dated February 22, 2001, from Dr. L, who apparently saw the claimant for the purpose of assessing a maximum medical improvement date and impairment rating (IR) for the carrier. Dr. L reviewed the MRI and commented, “There is no major herniation present.” Dr. L found inconsistencies and “no objective findings indicating any injury to [claimant’s] . . . back . . . .” A designated doctor did, however, assess an IR of the lumbar spine. (The designated doctor’s opinion does not have presumptive weight on extent of injury.)
Whether a particular injury extends to or includes a certain member of the claimant’s body is a factual issue for the hearing officer to decide. There was conflicting medical evidence submitted on the disputed issue. Section 410.165(a) provides that the hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence as well as the weight and credibility that is to be given the evidence. It was for the hearing officer, as trier of fact, to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). This is equally true regarding medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The trier of fact 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). Nothing in our review of the record indicates that the challenged determination is so against the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
JAMES D. SANSING
6805 CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY N., SUITE 260
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78731-1691.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge