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 17, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by determining that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable repetitive trauma injury with an injury date of ___________, or __________. The claimant appealed the hearing officer’s determination on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds and the respondent (carrier) responded, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant testified that on ___________, she sustained a repetitive trauma injury to her left wrist while working for the employer; that her assigned duties as a customer service representative involved repetitive typing; that as a result of her repetitive duties, she began to experience pain and swelling in her left wrist on ___________; and that she was diagnosed as having a ganglion cyst and tendinitis, which her doctor attributed to her repetitive activities at work. The carrier presented evidence to support its assertion that the claimant had no job-related left wrist injury and that her repetitive job activities involved predominantly her right hand.
The hearing officer made findings of fact and concluded that the claimant did not sustain a compensable repetitive trauma injury on __________ or __________. The claimant had the burden to prove that she was injured in the course and scope of her employment. There is conflicting evidence in this case. The 1989 Act provides that the hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of given to the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the trier of fact, the hearing officer may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 950084, decided February 28, 1995. The finder of fact may believe that the claimant has an injury but disbelieve the claimant’s testimony that the injury occurred at work as claimed. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). A fact finder is not bound by the testimony (or evidence) of a medical witness where the credibility of that testimony (or evidence) is manifestly dependent upon the credibility of the information imparted to the medical witness by the claimant. Rowland v. Standard Fire Insurance Company, 489 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.). When reviewing a hearing officer’s decision to determine the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we should set aside the decision only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Appeal No. 950084, supra. We conclude that the challenged conclusion is supported by sufficient evidence and not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and 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 FIDELITY & GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge