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 November 20, 2002. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable injury of _____________, “does not include an injury to a herniation in the cervical spine.” The claimant appealed the hearing officer’s extent-of-injury determination on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. The appeal file does not contain a response from the respondent (carrier).
DECISION
Affirmed.
The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on _____________. The claimant testified that he injured his left shoulder when he picked up a door and felt pain in his left arm, and that he began to have neck pain a week after the incident. There was conflicting evidence.
The hearing officer determined that the compensable injury of _____________, was not a producing cause of any injury to the claimant’s cervical area. The issue of extent of injury 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)) and, as the trier of fact, resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence, including the medical evidence (Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ)). The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness, including the claimant. Aetna Insurance Company v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, no writ). In view of the evidence presented, we cannot conclude 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. 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 (a certified self-insured) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEMS
350 NORTH ST. PAUL
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Thomas A. Knapp
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Terri Kay Oliver – Appeals Judge