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 2, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable injury of ______________, does not extend to or include herniation at L4-5, annular tear at L4-5, bulge at L5-S1, the cervical spine, right shoulder, left arm, right arm, right knee, left hip, or left leg and that the claimant does not have disability as a result of the injury of ______________. The claimant appealed the determinations on sufficiency grounds. The respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant’s compensable injury of ______________, does not extend to or include herniation at L4-5, annular tear at L4-5, bulge at L5-S1, the cervical spine, right shoulder, left arm, right arm, right knee, left hip, or left leg. The issue of whether the claimant’s compensable injury extended to the claimed injuries was a question of fact for the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 000074, decided February 25, 2000. There was conflicting evidence presented with regard to this issue. Under Section 410.165(a), the hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence and, as the trier of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and decides what facts the evidence has established. Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The hearing officer was acting within his province as the fact finder in resolving the extent-of-injury issue against the claimant. The challenged determination is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to reverse that determination on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer likewise did not err in determining that the claimant did not have disability as a result of her compensable injury. Although disability can be established by a claimant’s testimony alone, the testimony of the claimant, as an interested party, only raises an issue of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. Escamilla v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 499 S.W.2d 758 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1973, no writ). Disability is a factual issue for the hearing officer, who is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence, to resolve. Section 410.165(a). In this case, we find the hearing officer’s decision supported by the evidence. The hearing officer’s disability determination is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to compel its reversal. Cain, supra.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the self-insured is (SELF-INSURED) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
DAVID E. TISSIN
CT CORPORATION
350 NORTH ST. PAUL
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge