Title: 

APD 040172

Significant Decision

Date: 

March 15, 2004

Issues: 

Disabilty/Existence-Duration, Existence of Compensable Inj

Table of Contents

APD 040172

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 January 5, 2004. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on ______________, and therefore did not have disability. The claimant appeals these adverse determinations on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. The respondent (carrier) responds, urging affirmance.

DECISION

Finding sufficient evidence to support the decision of the hearing officer and no reversible error in the record, we affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.

Whether the claimant sustained a compensable injury and had disability are factual questions for the hearing officer 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). In the instant case, the hearing officer was not persuaded by the evidence that the claimant sustained an injury, damage or harm to the physical structure of his body, while in the course and scope of his employment. The finder of fact may believe that the claimant has an injury, but disbelieve the claimant’s testimony that the injury occurred at work as claimed. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). With no compensable injury found, there is no basis upon which to find disability. By definition disability depends upon a compensable injury. See Section 401.011(16). 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. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). After reviewing the record, we find sufficient evidence to support the injury and disability determinations.

The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.

The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is

CT CORPORATION SYSTEM

350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET

DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.

Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge

CONCUR:

Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge

Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge