Title: 

APD 032824

Significant Decision

Date: 

December 15, 2003

Issues: 

Extent of Injury

Table of Contents

APD 032824

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 24, 2003. With respect to the single issue before him, the hearing officer determined that the respondent’s (claimant) compensable injury of ______________, includes the lumbar spine and right hip. In its appeal, the appellant (carrier) challenges that determination as being 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 determining that the claimant’s compensable injury of ______________, includes the lumbar spine and right hip. That issue presented a question 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 the extent-of-injury issue. The factors emphasized by the carrier in challenging the extent-of-injury determination 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 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 reverse that determination on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986). This is so even though another fact finder may 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 LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is

CT CORPORATION SYSTEMS

350 NORTH ST. PAUL, SUITE 2900

DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.

Elaine M. Chaney

CONCUR:

Margaret L. Turner – Appeals Judge

Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge