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 17, 2003. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant (claimant) did not have disability from February 25 through June 26, 2003, and that the claimant is not entitled to change treating doctors to Dr. H. The claimant appealed, arguing that the determinations that he did not have disability for the specified time period and that he is not entitled to change treating doctors are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The respondent (carrier) responded, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
We have reviewed the complained-of determinations and find that the hearing officer’s decision and order is supported by sufficient evidence to be affirmed. The issue of disability presented a question of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a); Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). There was conflicting evidence presented on the disputed issue. It was for the hearing officer, as the trier of fact, to resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and to determine what facts had been established. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the hearing officer’s determination regarding disability is so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. As such, no sound basis exists for us to reverse that determination on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant is not entitled to change treating doctors. Section 408.022 and Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 126.9(e) (Rule 126.9(e)) establish the criteria for selecting and changing a treating doctor. The hearing officer reviewed the evidence and determined that the claimant did not have a proper reason for changing treating doctors to Dr. H. Based on the evidence presented, the hearing officer could believe the claimant was requesting to change treating doctors to obtain a report which would take him completely off work. In view of the evidence presented, we cannot agree that the hearing officer erred in determining that the claimant is not entitled to change treating doctors.
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is NATIONAL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
STEPHEN C. CARLIN
13155 NOEL ROAD
900 THREE GALLERIA TOWER
DALLAS, TEXAS 75240.
Margaret L. Turner
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge