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 July 10, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the respondent’s (claimant) compensable injury of ______________, did extend to and include a right shoulder torn rotator cuff injury, and that the claimant had disability resulting from the compensable injury from October 31, 2002, through March 27, 2003. The appellant (carrier) appeals on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. The claimant responds, asserting that the carrier’s submission is not sufficient as an appeal and, in the alternative, urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
We first note that the claimant asserts that the carrier did not properly appeal the extent-of-injury and disability issues. We have held that no particular form of appeal is required and an appeal, even though terse or inartfully worded, will be considered. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91131, decided February 12, 1992; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93040, decided March 1, 1993. Generally, appeals that lack specificity will be treated as attacks on the sufficiency of the evidence. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92081, decided April 14, 1992. We reject the claimant’s argument that the carrier’s request for review is insufficient to meet the minimum requirements for an appeal.
The hearing officer did not err in reaching the complained-of determinations. The issues of extent of injury and disability involved questions of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. The evidence before the hearing officer was conflicting. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)) and, as the trier of fact, resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence, including the 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 determinations are 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 (Tex. 1986).
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Michael B. McShane
Appeals Panel
Manager-Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge