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 February 3, 2004. With respect to the single issue before her, the hearing officer determined that the respondent’s (claimant) compensable injury of _____________, includes the diagnosed T4-5 disc herniation. In its appeal, the appellant (carrier) asserts error in the hearing officer’s extent-of-injury determination. The appeal file does not contain a response to the carrier’s appeal from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant’s compensable injury of _____________, extends to and includes a disc herniation at T4-5. That issue 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). As the trier of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and decides what facts the evidence has established. Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). There was conflicting evidence on the disputed issue and the hearing officer was acting within her province as the fact finder in giving more weight to the opinions of Dr. O and Dr. R that the claimant had a T4-5 disc herniation and that it was caused by her work-related injury than to the opinion of Dr. S that the claimant’s thoracic spine MRI was normal and that it did not reveal a T4-5 disc herniation. The factors emphasized by the carrier in challenging the extent-of-injury determination on appeal are the same factors it emphasized at the hearing. The significance, if any, of those factors was a matter for the hearing officer in resolving the issue before her. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the challenged determination is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to reverse 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 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
GARY SUDOL
9330 LBJ FREEWAY, SUITE 1200
DALLAS, TEXAS 75243.
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
Veronica L. Ruberto – Appeals Judge