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 March 25, 2003. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on _____________, and that he did not have disability. The claimant appealed, arguing that the hearing officer’s determinations are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The claimant requests that the Appeals Panel reverse the hearing officer’s decision and render a new decision in favor of the claimant, or in the alternative, reverse and remand the case to the hearing officer for further findings. The respondent (carrier) responded, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
Injury and disability issues presented questions of fact for the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93613, decided August 24, 1993. Section 410.165(a) provides that the hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. As the fact finder, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and determines what facts the evidence has established. Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co., 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. Aetna Insurance Company v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, no writ). In arguing that the challenged determinations are against the great weight of the evidence, the claimant emphasizes the same factors he emphasized at the hearing. The significance, if any, of those factors was a matter for the hearing officer. The hearing officer was acting within his province as the finder of fact in crediting the evidence presented by the carrier. Nothing in our review of the record demonstrates that the hearing officer’s injury and disability determinations are so against the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to disturb those determinations on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). Although another fact finder could have drawn different inferences from the evidence, which would have supported a different result, that does not provide a basis for us to reverse the hearing officer’s decision on appeal. Salazar v. Hill, 551 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CINDY GHALIBAF
7610 STEMMONS FREEWAY, SUITE 350
DALLAS, TEXAS 75247.
Veronica L. Ruberto
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge