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 August 18, 2003, with the record closing on October 7, 2003. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that on _____________, the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury and has not had disability. The claimant appealed, arguing that the respondent (carrier) did not submit any evidence in support of its denial of the claim. The claimant further argued that the determinations were against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The appeal file does not contain a response from the carrier.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on _____________. The claimant had the burden of proof on that issue. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). The injury issue presented a question of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence and of its weight and credibility. Section 410.165(a). The hearing officer resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and decides what facts the evidence has established. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). When reviewing a hearing officer’s decision we will reverse such decision only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Pool v. Ford Motor Company, 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986); Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer determined that the evidence did not establish that the claimant sustained a compensable injury, noting that the claimant’s testimony and chiropractic records were not credible. The hearing officer was acting within his province as the fact finder in so finding. Nothing in our review of the record demonstrates that the challenged determination is so against the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust; therefore, no sound basis exists for us to reverse the injury determination on appeal. Pool, supra; Cain, supra. This is so even though another fact finder might have drawn other inferences and reached other conclusions. Salazar, et al. v. Hill, 551 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
The existence of a compensable injury is a prerequisite to finding disability. Section 401.011(16). Given our affirmance of the determination that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, we likewise affirm the determination that she did not have disability.
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
KEVIN POTEETE
1201 ELM STREET, SUITE 4700
DALLAS, TEXAS 75270.
Margaret L. Turner – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge