This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). On November 6, 2000, a hearing was held. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable injury of __________, did not cause the alleged loss of vision, loss of hearing, eye sensitivity, concussion, post concussion syndrome, dizziness, or cervical problems, and that the claimant has not had disability. The claimant appealed, and the respondent (carrier) responded.
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
The claimant testified that on __________, she hit her left temple on the corner of a metal table when she bent down to pick up a bottle that fell from the assembly line at work. The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on __________. The issues regarding the extent of the injury and whether the claimant has had disability were factual determinations to be made by the hearing officer from the evidence presented. There was conflicting evidence presented in this case. The hearing officer determined that the claimant sustained a minor contusion when she hit the table and that she has not had disability. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the finder of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts in the evidence. We conclude that the hearing officer’s decision against the claimant on the disputed issues is supported by sufficient evidence and is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Kenneth A. Huchton – Appeals Judge