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 October 16, 2002. The hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on ______________, and had disability from November 30, 2001, through the date of the hearing. The appellant (carrier) appeals these determinations. The claimant urges affirmance of the hearing officer’s decision and order.
DECISION
Affirmed.
Whether the claimant sustained a compensable injury and had disability were factual questions for the hearing officer to resolve. Injury and disability determinations can be established by the claimant’s testimony alone, if believed by the hearing officer. Gee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 765 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. 1989). 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. 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). It was the hearing officer’s prerogative to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness, including that of the claimant. Aetna Insurance Company v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, no writ). Nothing in our review of the record indicates that the hearing officer’s decision is 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).
The carrier contends that the hearing officer’s compensability determination is “not specific enough to inform all parties as to what is the compensable injury.” We find no merit in this assertion. The issue before the hearing officer was whether the claimant sustained a compensable injury. The hearing officer was not presented with an extent-of-injury issue, nor was he required to define the compensable injury in terms of conditions and/or diagnoses. We perceive no error in the hearing officer not defining the exact nature of the compensable injury.
The hearing officer’s decision and order is affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS, SUITE 750, COMMODORE 1
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Chris Cowan
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge