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 15, 2001. The appellant (claimant) had been injured on ___________, when his employer obtained workers’ compensation insurance coverage through the respondent (Carrier No. 1). The claimant contended that he sustained two different injuries on ___________ and ___________, while on light duty, at a time when the employer purchased coverage through co-respondent (Carrier No. 2). At issue were those injuries and any related disability, as well as whether the___________, injury included a condition called lipomatosis.
The hearing officer held that the lipomatosis was congenital and not the result of a compensable injury. She further held that the claimant did not sustain injuries on ___________ or ___________, and therefore had no related disability.
The claimant has appealed these holdings and related findings of fact. Carrier No. 1 and Carrier No. 2 respond that the decision should be affirmed.
DECISION
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision.
The essence of the appeal is an argument that the hearing officer should have given more weight to the claimant’s medical evidence. The decision goes into considerable detail setting out the facts and explaining why the hearing officer found some evidence and testimony less credible than others. The hearing officer is not required, however, to detail every document in evidence. See Section 410.168(a). Clearly, there was conflicting evidence offered, both testimonial and medical, as to whether the claimant sustained new injuries when he was put on light-duty work. There was also conflicting medical evidence, the opinion of the claimant’s first treating doctor that there were no new injuries to the claimant’s lumbar spine as against the opinion of his current treating doctor that there were new injuries, and it was the responsibility of the hearing officer to weigh such evidence. There was no argument or evidence developed at the CCH relating to the causal relationship of lumbar lipomatosis to the___________, injury.
The burden is on the claimant to prove that an injury occurred within the course and scope of employment. Service Lloyds Insurance Co. v. Martin, 855 S.W.2d 816 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, no writ); Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Page, 553 S.W.2d 98 (Tex. 1977). A trier of fact is not required to accept a claimant’s testimony at face value, even if not specifically contradicted by other evidence. Bullard v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, 609 S.W.2d 621 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1980, no writ). The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness. Taylor v. Lewis, 553 S.W.2d 153, 161 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The decision of the hearing officer will be set aside only if the evidence supporting the hearing officer’s determination is so weak or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company v. Middleman, 661 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The record supports the inferences and conclusions of the hearing officer and we therefore cannot agree that this was the case here, and affirm the decision and order.
The true corporate name of Carrier No. 1 is TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
The true corporate name of Carrier No. 2 is LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C.T. CORPORATION SYSTEMS
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge