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 scheduled for February 12, 2004, but was continued to and held on April 20, 2004. The hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable injury of ______________, does include or extend to include a cervical sprain/strain, but does not include or extend to include a posterior disc herniation at C5-6. The claimant appealed, disputing the determination that the compensable injury does not include or extend to include a posterior disc herniation at C5-6. The respondent (carrier) responded, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant’s compensable injury of ______________, does not include or extend to include a posterior disc herniation at C5-6. Extent of injury is a question of fact. It was for the hearing officer, as the trier of fact, to resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and to determine what facts had been established. 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 view of the evidence presented, we cannot conclude that the hearing officer’s determination 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).
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
701 BRAZOS, SUITE 1050
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Veronica L. Ruberto – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Margaret L. Turner – Appeals Judge