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 31, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) is not entitled to lifetime income benefits (LIBs). The claimant appeals on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. The respondent (self-insured) did not reply to the appeal.
DECISION
Affirmed, as reformed.
We first note that the claimant’s appeal misstates the issue in this case. The appeal incorrectly references an extent of injury issue. The sole issue brought forward from the benefit review conference and litigated at this CCH was the issue of entitlement to LIBs. The appeal also misstates the findings, again asserting that the hearing officer made a finding on extent of injury. She did not. Lastly, the appeal asks us to reverse the decision of the hearing officer and render a decision that the claimant has been disabled from December 8, 1994, through the present. Disability was not an issue at this CCH, nor was it litigated at the CCH. Despite the errors in the appeal, it contains sufficient correct assertions that we are able to consider it as an appeal on evidentiary sufficiency grounds.
The hearing officer states in the Statement of the Evidence that “Claimant can meet the requirement that . . . .” This is an obvious typographical error when read with the rest of the evidence and the Decision and Order. We reform this sentence to read “Claimant cannot meet the requirement that . . . .”
The complained-of determination involved questions of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. 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)). In view of the evidence presented, we cannot conclude that the hearing officer’s determination is so 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 decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed, as reformed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a self insured governmental entity) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
RB
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge