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 August 26, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the compensable injury of ______________, does not extend to and include the cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, or right shoulder, and that the appellant (claimant) does not have disability from September 12, 2002, through the date of the CCH. The claimant appealed, disputing both the extent-of-injury and disability determinations. The respondent (self-insured) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
It is undisputed that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on ______________. The claimant testified that she ran into an approximately five feet tall commercial mixer when she was carrying a tray of bread, and felt immediate severe pain in her breast area. She was diagnosed with a right breast contusion and returned to full duty. She was later taken off work when she complained of and received therapy to her shoulder, mid-back, and lumbar areas. Although she has not been released to full duty, the claimant testified that she returned to work in September 2002. The hearing officer found that there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal relationship between the claimed injuries and the ______________, compensable injury.
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 a self-insured political subdivision of the West Texas Educational Insurance Association and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
SUPERINTENDENT
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge