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 June 21, 2001, but reset to November 7, 2001. She determined the injury of ___________, extended to a cervical sprain, left knee contusion, and tinnitus but not to vertigo or cervical herniation. The hearing officer held that the appellant (claimant) had disability from the injury for the period of March 27 through April 23, 2001.
The claimant has appealed the adverse determinations on an evidentiary basis; the respondent (carrier) responds and asks that the decision be affirmed.
DECISION
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision.
The hearing officer did not err in determining the claimant’s extent of injury and disability period therefrom. Whether the claimant sustained all of the alleged injuries as a result of the work-related incident on ___________, 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. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)) and, as the trier of fact, resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence, including the medical evidence (Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ)). The hearing officer could disbelieve the claimant’s testimony and infer from the evidence that the claimant’s full extent of injuries did not result from a blow to the head on ___________. The hearing officer’s determination is so not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not have disability beyond April 23, 2001. While medical evidence, or the lack thereof, is not dispositive of the issue of disability, the hearing officer could choose to believe that the injuries she determined were sustained did not result in the full period of disability sought by the claimant.
In considering all the evidence in the record, we cannot agree that the findings of the hearing officer are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly wrong and unjust. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951). The decision and order of the hearing officer is affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C.T. CORPORATION
350 NORTH ST. PAUL
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge