Title: 

APD 022936

Significant Decision

Date: 

December 18, 2002

Issues: 

Extent of Injury

Table of Contents

APD 022936

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 17, 2002. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the compensable injury of ___________, does not extend to and include injuries to the appellant’s (claimant) cervical discs and/or her lumbar discs and that the claimant did not have disability resulting from an injury sustained on ___________. The claimant appeals, disputing the determinations of the hearing officer. The respondent (carrier) responds, urging affirmance.

DECISION

Affirmed.

Extent of injury and disability are factual questions for the fact finder to resolve. The hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence as well as the weight and credibility that is to be given to the evidence. Section 410.165(a). It is for the hearing officer to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). This is equally true of medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286, 290 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness, including the claimant. Aetna Insurance Company v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, no writ). The evidence supports the hearing officer’s determinations. The designated doctor opined that the claimant “at best, [sic] sustained a soft tissue injury of the cervical and lumbar spine.” Additionally, the physician who performed an independent medical examination opined that the claimant had a soft tissue injury both in the cervical and lumbar area, which has resolved. The Appeals Panel will not disturb the challenged factual findings of a hearing officer unless they are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust, and we do not find them to be so in this case. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951).

We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.

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.

Margaret L. Turner

CONCUR:

Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge

Michael B. McShane

Appeals Panel

Manager/Judge