This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on October 8, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on __________; that the respondent (carrier) is not relieved of liability (under Section 406.032(1)(A)) because the claimed injury did not occur while the claimant was in a state of intoxication as defined by Section 401.013; and that the claimant has not had disability. The claimant appealed the hearing officer’s determinations that he did not sustain a compensable injury and that he has not had disability. The carrier responded. There is no appeal of the hearing officer’s decision on the intoxication issue.
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
COMPENSABLE INJURY ISSUE
Section 401.011(10) defines a “compensable injury” as “an injury that arises out of and in the course and scope of employment for which compensation is payable under this subtitle.” The claimant had the burden to prove that he was injured during the course and scope of his employment. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). Conflicting evidence was presented at the CCH. The hearing officer, as the trier of fact, may believe that the claimant has an injury, but disbelieve that the injury occurred as claimed by the claimant. Johnson. It is evident from the hearing officer’s discussion of the evidence that she did not find the claimant’s testimony credible regarding the circumstances of his claimed injury. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the trier of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts in the evidence and determines what facts have been established. The hearing officer found that the claimant did not sustain an injury to his lower back in the course and scope of his employment on __________, and concluded that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on that date. The hearing officer’s determination is supported by sufficient evidence and is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
DISABILITY ISSUE
Section 401.011(16) defines “disability” as “the inability because of a compensable injury to obtain and retain employment at wages equivalent to the preinjury wage.” The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant has not had disability because, without a compensable injury, the claimant would not have disability as defined by the 1989 Act.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
GARY SUDOL, ATTORNEY AT LAW
9330 LBJ FREEWAY, SUITE 1200
DALLAS, TEXAS 75213.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge