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 September 16, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable injury of ______________, does not extend to and include left carpal tunnel syndrome or disc protusions with thecal sac impingement at C3-4, C4-5, C5-6 and C6-7. The claimant appeals this determination. The respondent (self-insured) urges affirmance of the hearing officer’s decision.
DECISION
Affirmed.
Extent of injury is a factual question for the hearing officer to resolve. 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 and to decide what facts the evidence has established. Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co., 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). In this instance, the hearing officer was not persuaded that the claimant sustained his burden of proving the causal connection between his compensable injury and the alleged conditions. The hearing officer was acting within his province as the fact finder in making these determinations. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the hearing officer’s extent-of-injury determination is 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 disturb that determination on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order is affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a self-insured governmental entity) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
DC
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Chris Cowan
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Margaret L. Turner – Appeals Judge