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 April 2, 2004. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the compensable injury of _____________, extends to and includes a closed head injury and resulting post-concussion syndrome, left temporoparietal headaches, and psychological disorder. The appellant (carrier) appealed, arguing that the extent determination is contrary to the great weight of the credible evidence and that respondent 2 (claimant) failed to support her contention as to the extent issue with sufficient credible testimony as well as sufficient medical evidence. Respondent 1 (subclaimant) responded, urging affirmance. The appeal file did not contain a response from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on _____________. At issue was whether the compensable injury includes a closed head injury and resulting post-concussion syndrome, left temporoparietal headaches, and psychological disorder. Extent of injury is a factual question for the hearing officer to resolve. The hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence as well as the weight and credibility that is to be given to the evidence. Section 410.165(a). It is for the hearing officer to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence and to decide what facts the evidence has established. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). This includes the medical evidence (Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ)). In this instance, the hearing officer was persuaded that the claimant sustained her burden of proving the causal connection between her compensable injury and the complained-of injuries. The hearing officer was acting within his province as the fact finder in so finding. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the hearing officer’s extent-of-injury 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).
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
RICK KNIGHT
105 DECKER COURT, SUITE 600
IRVING, TEXAS 75062.
Margaret L. Turner
CONCUR:
Daniel R. Barry – Appeals Judge
Veronica L. Ruberto – Appeals Judge