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 17, 2004. The hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable repetitive trauma injury in the nature of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome with a date of injury of _______________. The appellant (self-insured) appealed this determination and asserted that the hearing officer erred in admitting Claimant’s Exhibit No. 9. The claimant responded, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The self-insured asserts that the hearing officer erred in admitting Claimant’s Exhibit No. 9. The self-insured objected to the admission of this exhibit at the hearing, asserting that it was not timely exchanged. Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 142.13(c) (Rule 142.13(c)) provides that the parties shall exchange documentary evidence no later than 15 days after the benefit review conference. The claimant explained that she had an appointment with the doctor a few days before the CCH and that she exchanged the medical documentation as soon as it became available. Our standard of review regarding the hearing officer’s evidentiary rulings is one of abuse of discretion. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92165, decided June 5, 1992. To obtain reversal of a judgment based upon the hearing officer’s abuse of discretion in the admission or exclusion of evidence, an appellant must first show that the admission or exclusion was in fact an abuse of discretion, and also that the error was reasonably calculated to cause and probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92241, decided July 24, 1992; see also Hernandez v. Hernandez, 611 S.W.2d 732 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1981, no writ). In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the Appeals Panel looks to see whether the hearing officer acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 951943, decided January 2, 1996; see Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. 1986). It was a factual issue for the hearing officer to determine whether or not the document was in fact timely exchanged, and, if not, if there was good cause for such failure. The hearing officer determined that the claimant had good cause for failing to timely exchange the medical document, and that the claimant exchanged the medical document as soon as it became available. We do not find the hearing officer’s ruling to be an abuse of discretion, nor can we say that the hearing officer acted without reference to guiding rules and principles. Nor did the self-insured establish that the evidentiary error it asserts probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment.
We have reviewed the complained-of determination and find that the hearing officer’s Decision and Order is supported by sufficient evidence to be affirmed. The issue of injury 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). There was conflicting evidence presented on the disputed issue. 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 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). This is equally true regarding medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness. Taylor v. Lewis, 553 S.W.2d 153, 161 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Aetna Insurance Company v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, no writ). Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the hearing officer’s determination is so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. As such, no sound basis exists for us to reverse that determination on appeal. 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 STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT (a self-insured governmental entity) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
For service in person the address is:
RON JOSSELET, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT
300 W. 15TH STREET
WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, JR. STATE OFFICE BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
For service by mail the address is:
RON JOSSELET, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT
P.O. BOX 13777
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-3777.
Veronica L. Ruberto – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge