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 22, 2003. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on _____________; that the compensable injury includes a cervical sprain/strain with associated headaches, left knee sprain/strain, and lumbar sprain/strain with associated L5-S1 posterior central herniation; and that the claimant had disability from March 21, 2003, through the date of the hearing. In its appeal, the appellant (carrier) argues that the hearing officer’s injury, extent-of-injury, and disability determinations are against the great weight of the evidence. The appeal file does not contain a response to the carrier’s appeal from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in making his injury, extent-of-injury, and disability determinations. 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 proving that he sustained an injury as a result of falling from a paint booth and landing on a concrete floor; that his compensable injury included a cervical sprain/strain with associated headaches, a left knee sprain/strain, and a lumbar sprain/strain with an associated L5-S1 posterior central herniation; and that he had disability from March 21, 2003, through the date of the hearing. The factors emphasized by the carrier in challenging those 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 issues 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 the injury, extent-of-injury, and disability determinations on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
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
701 BRAZOS, SUITE 1050
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge