This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on March 9, 2004. The hearing officer decided that the appellant (claimant herein) sustained a compensable injury on ______________; that the respondent (carrier herein) was not relieved of liability for the injury based on untimely reporting of the injury; and that the claimant had disability beginning on February 26, 2003, and continuing through August 18, 2003, but did not have disability from August 19, 2003, through the date of the CCH. The claimant appeals the hearing officer’s disability determination arguing that the evidence established that he had disability after August 18, 2003. The carrier replies that the evidence supported the decision of the hearing officer. Neither party appealed the hearing officer’s resolution of the injury and timely notice of injury issues.
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.
Disability is a question of fact to be determined by the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93560, decided August 19, 1993. Section 410.165(a) provides that the hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence as well as of the weight and credibility that is to be given to the evidence. It was for the hearing officer, as trier of fact, to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701, 702 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). When reviewing a hearing officer’s decision for factual sufficiency of the evidence we should reverse such decision only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). This is so even though another fact finder might have drawn other inferences and reached other conclusions. Salazar v. Hill, 551 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). There was clearly conflicting evidence in this case concerning disability and based upon the above standard of review, we find no basis to reverse the hearing officer’s decision concerning disability.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
MR. RUSSELL OLIVER, PRESIDENT
221 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 300
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Gary L. Kilgore
CONCUR:
Daniel R. Barry – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge