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 August 4, 2003. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on _______________, and that he had disability, as a result of his compensable injury, from October 22, 2002, through the date of the hearing. In its appeal, the appellant (carrier) argues that those determinations are against the great weight of the evidence. The appeal file does not contain a response from the claimant to the carrier’s appeal.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on _______________, and that he had disability from October 22, 2002, through the date of the hearing. Those issues presented questions of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the trier of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and decides what facts the evidence has established. Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The hearing officer was persuaded that the claimant sustained his burden of proof on both issues. The factors emphasized by the carrier in challenging the hearing officer’s injury and disability determinations on appeal are the same factors it emphasized at the hearing. The significance, if any, of those factors was a matter for the hearing officer in resolving the issue before him. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the challenged determinations are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to reverse those determinations on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986). This is so even though another fact finder may well have drawn different inferences from the evidence and reached a different result. Salazar v. Hill, 551 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge