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 18, 2003. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on ______________, and that he had disability beginning on November 22, 2002, and continuing through the date of the hearing. The appellant (carrier) appealed, arguing that the hearing officer’s determinations are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The appeal file does not contain a response from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant had the burden to prove that he sustained a compensable injury as defined by Section 401.011(10) and that he had disability as defined by Section 401.011(16). Conflicting evidence was presented on the disputed issues. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the finder of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts in the evidence and determines what facts have been established. The claimant testified that on ______________, he injured his right foot at work when a pallet jack ran over the toes of his right foot. The claimant continued to work, but after a few weeks his right foot became swollen and he sought medical treatment on November 21, 2002. The claimant was released to light duty, however, the employer was unable to offer the claimant light duty, as his job was already classified as sedentary. The claimant testified that because of the injury to his right foot he has not been able to work from November 22, 2002, and continuing through the date of the hearing. The hearing officer was persuaded by the claimant’s testimony that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on ______________, and that he had disability from November 22, 2002, through the date of the hearing.
We conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations on the disputed issues are supported by sufficient evidence and are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986). Although another hearing officer may well have drawn different inferences from the evidence that would have supported a different result, that fact does not permit us to disturb the hearing officer’s decision. Salazar v. Hill, 551 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Veronica L. Ruberto
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge