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 March 1, 2004. The hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant) _____________, compensable injury does not extend to the diagnoses of right pronator tunnel, cubital tunnel, carpal tunnel syndrome, nor at this time to reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD); and that the claimant had disability from February 8 through March 5, 2003, and from March 13 through November 20, 2003. The claimant appealed the extent-of-injury and disability determinations, essentially asserting that the hearing officer erred in exercising his own medical judgment, as he is not qualified to do so. The claimant additionally asserts that the hearing officer erred in cutting off disability as no doctor has placed her at maximum medical improvement (MMI), she requires further treatment, and her treating doctor has not released her to work. The respondent (self-insured) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The complained-of issues in this case involved factual questions 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)) and resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence, including the medical evidence (Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ)). It was the hearing officer’s prerogative to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness, including that of the claimant. Aetna Insurance Company v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, no writ). The hearing officer was not persuaded by the evidence, that the compensable injury includes the above-mentioned diagnoses or that the claimant had disability resulting from the compensable injury beyond November 20, 2003. Nothing in our review of the record indicates that the hearing officer’s decision is 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).
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
JG
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Daniel R. Barry
CONCUR:
Veronica L. Ruberto – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge