Title: 

APD 020669

Significant Decision

Date: 

April 30, 2002

Issues: 

Disabilty/Existence-Duration, Existence of Compensable Inj

Table of Contents

APD 020669

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 January 28, 2002. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on ________, and did not have disability as the result of a compensable injury.

The claimant appealed this decision and the respondent (carrier) responded that the decision should be affirmed.

DECISION

We affirm the hearing officer’s decision.

Essentially, the claimant quarrels with the manner in which the hearing officer gave weight and credibility to the evidence. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the relevance, materiality, weight, and credibility of the evidence presented at the hearing. Section 410.165(a). She discussed the evidence and found that the claimant was not credible in his assertion of how the injury occurred. The decision should not be set aside because different conclusions may be drawn upon review, even when the record contains evidence that would lend itself to different inferences. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). An appeals-level body is not a fact finder and does not normally pass upon the credibility of witnesses or substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of fact, even if the evidence would support a different result. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Soto, 819 S.W.2d 619, 620 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1991, writ denied); American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Volentine, 867 S.W.2d 170 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1993, no writ). The record in this case presented conflicting evidence for the hearing officer to resolve.

In considering all the evidence in the record, we cannot agree that the findings of the hearing officer on the issues of injury and disability 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). We therefore affirm the decision and order.

The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is

LINDA LEWIS

1600 NORTH COLLINS BLVD., SUITE 300

RICHARDSON, TEXAS 75080.

Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge

CONCUR:

Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge

Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge