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 15, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable (bilateral hands and left knee) injury included the left shoulder but did not include the neck, low back, and left hip, and that the claimant had disability from April 8 through May 19, 2002. The hearing officer’s determination on the period of disability has not been appealed and has become final pursuant to Section 410.169.
The claimant appeals, contending that the compensable injury extends to include the neck, low back, and left hip, citing certain medical reports. The claimant contends that “internal consistency in the decision & order” require reversal of the decision. The respondent (self-insured) responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant, a clerk at the self-insured’s jail, slipped and fell forward on some steps on _____________. The self-insured accepted an injury to the claimant’s left hand and left knee, although, as the hearing officer commented, the medical records also show the claimant injured her right hand. A medical report a week later recites that the claimant has “some soreness” in her neck, the doctor found full range of motion without pain. Medical reports noting low back pain did not arise until 2001, some months after the fall. The hearing officer commented that there “is no evidence of any actual injury to the left hip.”
The claimant, in her appeal, points to certain medical reports which mention the neck, low back, and left hip and asserts that consistency requires those body parts be found part of the compensable injury. The hearing officer explained in some detail how he reached his conclusions in the Statement of the Evidence and those conclusions are supported by the evidence. Conflicting evidence was presented on the disputed issues. 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 in the evidence and determines what facts have been established. The hearing officer’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence and is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are 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
SR
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Thomas A. Knapp
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge