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 September 18, 2002. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the respondent’s (claimant) compensable injury of ______________, extends to and includes an injury to the cervical area, cataracts in both eyes, and loss of vision. The appellant (carrier) appeals, arguing that the determinations of the hearing officer are not supported by the credible evidence admitted at the CCH. The appeal file does not contain a response from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant’s compensable injury extends to and includes an injury to the cervical area, cataracts in both eyes, and loss of vision. Extent of injury is a question of fact for the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93613, decided August 24, 1993. In the present case, the hearing officer relied on the medical evidence submitted by the claimant in which the claimant’s treating doctor opined that the claimant “most likely has developed [bilateral dense cataracts] from his traumatic head injury in _________, after falling from the truck.” The hearing officer additionally noted that the claimant had been diagnosed with C6 radiculopathy and that the mechanism of injury is consistent with this diagnosis. Although the carrier presented evidence to the contrary, 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, 702 (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, 290 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). We conclude that the hearing officer’s findings of fact in this regard are supported by sufficient evidence and are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
MR. RUSSELL R. OLIVER, PRESIDENT
221 WEST 6TH STREET
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Margaret L. Turner
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge