Title: 

APD 031691

Significant Decision

Date: 

August 18, 2003

Issues: 

Disabilty/Existence-Duration, Extent of Injury

Table of Contents

APD 031691

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 May 28, 2003. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the compensable injury of ____________, extends to include the upper back and neck and that the respondent (claimant) had disability from August 1, 2002, through March 5, 2003. The appellant (carrier) appealed, arguing that the hearing officer’s determinations are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The claimant responded, urging affirmance.

DECISION

Affirmed.

It is undisputed that the claimant sustained a compensable lumbar injury on ____________. Extent of injury and disability are factual questions for the fact finder to resolve. Conflicting evidence was presented on these issues. 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. 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 of medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286, 290 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness, including that of the claimant. Aetna Insurance Company v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, no writ). The evidence supports the hearing officer’s factual determinations. The Appeals Panel will not disturb the challenged factual findings of a hearing officer unless they are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust, and we do not find them to be so in this case. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951).

We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.

The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is

LEO MALO

ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

12222 MERIT DRIVE, SUITE 700

DALLAS, TEXAS 75251.

Margaret L. Turner

CONCUR:

Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge

Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge