This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on December 2, 2002. The hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on ____________; that the claimant timely reported the injury to his employer; that the claimant had disability resulting from the compensable injury sustained on ____________, from March 20 through September 21, 2002; and that the appellant (carrier) waived the right to contest compensability of the injury. The carrier appeals and the claimant responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The carrier contends that the hearing officer did not detail all of the evidence submitted at the CCH. We do not consider the hearing officer’s failure to detail and mention all of the evidence as reversible error or as allowing us to substitute our judgment for that of the hearing officer. Just because the hearing officer failed to discuss, or even mention, evidence that the carrier thought was particularly compelling, there is no evidence that the hearing officer failed to consider that evidence.
The carrier also contends that the hearing officer was biased. We cannot conclude from an examination of the record that the hearing officer was biased against the carrier or that the carrier was not afforded an objective hearing. The carrier was not restrained from presenting its evidence in regard to the issues at the CCH. A hearing officer’s weighing of the evidence so as to rule in favor of one party and against another is not, in and of itself, evidence of bias. The hearing officer was entitled to and required to decide what evidences he believed in this case.
The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)), resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence (Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ)), and determines what facts have been established from the conflicting evidence. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Escalera, 385 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.). As an appellate-reviewing tribunal, the Appeals Panel will not disturb the challenged factual findings of a hearing officer unless they are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust and we do not find them so in this case. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951).
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TRANSCONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Roy L. Warren – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge