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 April 5, 2004. The hearing officer determined that the respondent’s (claimant) compensable injury of _____________, includes an injury of chronic pain syndrome, but does not include depression and/or anxiety. The appellant (self-insured) appealed that part of the hearing officer’s extent-of-injury determination regarding chronic pain syndrome, arguing that this part of the determination is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The appeal file does not contain a response from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable shoulder tendonitis and bilateral leg contusion injury on _____________. At issue was whether the claimant’s compensable injury of _____________, includes chronic pain syndrome, depression, and anxiety. The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant’s compensable injury of _____________, includes an injury of chronic pain syndrome, but not depression and anxiety. The issue of extent-of-injury is a question of fact for the hearing officer. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). 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). In the instant case, the hearing officer was persuaded by the treating doctor’s testimony and medical evidence that the claimant’s compensable injury of _____________, includes chronic pain syndrome. When reviewing a hearing officer’s decision, we will reverse such decision only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and manifestly 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). We have reviewed the challenged determinations. The hearing officer’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence and is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain, supra; In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951).
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
GT
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Veronica L. Ruberto
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge