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 October 3, 2001. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on __________, and had disability from __________, through the date of the hearing. The appellant (carrier) urges that these determinations are not sufficiently supported by the evidence. The appeal file contains no response from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant had the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she sustained a compensable injury on __________, and thereafter had disability, and these issues presented the hearing officer with questions of fact to resolve. The carrier contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support the determination that the claimant sustained a compensable injury because the claimant is not credible. Generally, injury and disability can be established by the claimant’s testimony alone, if believed by the hearing officer. Gee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 765 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. 1989). The hearing officer could believe the claimant’s testimony and also credit the medical evidence in the medical records relating to the period of her disability as that concept is defined in Section 401.011(16). The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)) and it is for the hearing officer to resolve such conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence as were present in this case (Garza v. Commercial Insurance Co., 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, 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.
The true corporate name of the carrier is AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION
350 NORTH ST. PAUL
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge