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 9, 2003. With respect to the issue before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable injury of ______________, does not extend to or include an injury to the left arm, the lumbar spine, the hips, both legs, the cervical spine, the right shoulder, psychological problems, or chronic pain syndrome complex. The claimant appealed, arguing that the hearing officer’s extent-of-injury determination is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. In its response, the respondent (self-insured) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant’s compensable injury of ______________, does not extend to or include an injury to the left arm, the lumbar spine, the hips, both legs, the cervical spine, the right shoulder, psychological problems, or chronic pain syndrome complex. The claimant had the burden of proof on the extent-of-injury issue and it presented a question of fact for the hearing officer. The 1989 Act makes the hearing officer the sole judge of the weight and credibility to be given to the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As such, the hearing officer was required to resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and to determine what facts the evidence established. In this instance, the hearing officer simply was not persuaded that the claimant sustained her burden of proving that her compensable injury extended to the body parts and conditions at issue. The hearing officer was acting within his province as the fact finder in so finding. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the challenged determination is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust. Thus, no sound basis exists for us to disturb that determination on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a self-insured governmental entity) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
DL
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge