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 23, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant’s) injury of _____________, does not extend to and include a left knee injury, and that the claimant did not sustain disability as a result of the _____________, claimed injury. The claimant appealed arguing that the hearing officer erred in determining extent of injury and disability. The respondent (self-insured) filed a response urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant testified that he was employed as a custodian for the employer. He testified that on _____________, as he was setting up tables and benches in the cafeteria, a bench fell and hit him on the head and neck and that he landed on his left knee. The claimant reported the injury to his supervisor and he sought medical treatment at a medical clinic the day of the injury. The medical records in evidence dated _______ and __, 2001, show that the claimant complained of a work-related head injury. On May 14, 2001, the claimant complained about knee pain and he sought medical treatment for his left knee with his treating doctor. On May 15, 2001, the claimant informed the employer that his claimed injury of _____________, extends to and includes his left knee. The claimant testified that he has been unable to perform his job as a custodian due to his claimed injury. Also, the claimant testified that he is a musician and has continued to work in that capacity since his injury on _____________.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant’s compensable injury does not extend to and include a left knee injury. Extent of injury is a question of fact. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93613, decided August 24, 1993. The testimony and the medical evidence presented at the hearing sufficiently support the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant’s compensable injury of _____________, does not extend to and include a left knee injury.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not sustain disability as a result of the compensable injury. The evidence supports his inference that the injuries did not cause an inability to obtain and retain employment equivalent to the claimants’s pre-injury average weekly wage. Section 401.011(16).
It is the hearing officer, as the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)), who resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence (Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ)), and determines what facts have been established from the conflicting evidence. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Escalera, 385 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.). This is equally true of medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). 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 so in this case. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951).
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (SELF-INSURED) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
RM
(ADDRESS)
SUITE 602
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge