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 14, 2001, with the record closing on October 25, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by concluding that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on ___________, and did not have disability. The claimant appeals on sufficiency grounds and seeks reversal. In its response, the respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant worked as a laborer for the employer. The claimant testified that on ___________, he was loading parts of a lathe in a wooden box and that when he bent over the box to place the part in it, both of his feet left the ground and he felt a sharp pain in his lower back. The claimant testified that he continued working and was terminated later that day. Further, the claimant testified that he did not report the injury to his employer until ___________. In a peer review report dated May 15, 2001, Dr. H stated that “based upon the mechanism of injury, the reports of fellow employees and supervisors, as well the profound nature of the MRI findings, it is my opinion that [the claimant] did not incur these changes on _________…..”
There was conflicting evidence submitted on the disputed issues. Section 410.165(a) provides that the hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence as well as of the weight and credibility that is to be given the evidence. It was for the hearing officer, as trier of fact, to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). This is equally true regarding medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness. Aetna Insurance Company v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, no writ). Nothing in our review of the record indicates that the challenged determinations are so against the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust.
Because we affirm the hearing officer’s compensability determination, we also affirm his disability conclusion. By definition, if the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, he had no resultant disability. Section 401.011(16).
In his appeal, the claimant contends the hearing officer abused her discretion by having a predisposition as to what an injured person’s actions are to be when relating it to an MRI. In her statement of the evidence, the hearing officer states that credibility played a major role in sorting the facts of the case and discussed several conflicts in the evidence. Our review of the record does not indicate that the hearing officer abused her discretion.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is:
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS, SUITE 750
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge