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 December 11, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on ___________, and did not have disability. On appeal, the claimant expresses disagreement with these determinations and objects to the hearing officer’s admission of several of the respondent’s (carrier) exhibits. The carrier urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
In deciding whether the hearing officer’s decision is sufficiently supported by the evidence, we will only consider the evidence admitted at the hearing. We will not generally consider evidence that was not submitted into the record at the hearing and raised for the first time on appeal. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92255, decided July 27, 1992. To determine whether evidence offered for the first time on appeal requires that a case be remanded for further consideration, we consider whether it came to the appellant’s knowledge after the hearing, whether it is cumulative, whether it was through lack of diligence that it was not offered at the hearing, and whether it is so material that it would probably produce a different result. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93111, decided March 29, 1993; Black v. Wills, 758 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1988, no writ). We do not find that to be the case with documents that the claimant attached to his request for review and, therefore, they will not be considered on appeal.
With regard to the claimant’s objection on appeal of the hearing officer’s admission of Carrier’s Exhibits C and D, we note that the exhibits were admitted into evidence without objection at the hearing. Evidence which is admitted without objection cannot be complained of on appeal. Dicker v. Security Insurance Company, 474 S.W.2d 334 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1971, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The other matters complained of by the claimant concern credibility and fact issues, which were for the hearing officer to resolve. Section 410.165(a) provides that the contested case 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. We have reviewed the complained-of determinations and we conclude that they are not 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, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the carrier is LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS STREET
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge