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 originally held on September 16, 1999. The Appeals Panel, in Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 992293, decided November 29, 1999, remanded the case for the hearing officer to seek clarification from Dr. P, the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission-selected designated doctor; to determine whether the amended report of Dr. P was rendered in compliance with the provisions of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, third edition, second printing, dated February 1989, published by the American Medical Association (AMA Guides), is a valid report, and is entitled to presumptive weight; if it is not, to obtain a report from a designated doctor that is rendered in compliance with the AMA Guides, is valid, and is entitled to presumptive weight; to determine whether the great weight of the other medical evidence is contrary to the report of the designated doctor that is entitled to presumptive weight; and to award an impairment rating (IR). The hearing officer obtained additional information from Dr. P and determined that his report assigning a 14% IR is entitled to presumptive weight, that the great weight of the other medical evidence is not contrary to that report, and that the appellant’s (claimant) IR is 14%. The claimant appealed; complained that three letters that he sent to the hearing officer are not included as exhibits in the record on remand; and requested that those three letters be accepted as exhibits, that the Appeals Panel determine that the report of Dr. P was not rendered in accordance with the AMA Guides, reverse the decision of the hearing officer, and render a decision that his IR is 16% as certified by his treating doctor. The respondent (carrier) replied, argued that the three letters from the claimant to the hearing officer should not be included in the record, urged that the determinations of the hearing officer are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust, and requested that her decision be affirmed.
DECISION
We affirm.
Appeal No. 992293, supra, contains a summary of the evidence from the hearing held on September 16, 1999. After the remand, the hearing officer wrote a letter to Dr. P dated December 28, 1999; attached a copy of Appeal No. 992293, supra, to the letter; and asked if his report was rendered in compliance with the AMA Guides. In a letter dated January 8, 2000, Dr. P discussed the straight leg raising test and stated that the examination was in compliance with the AMA Guides. In a letter to Dr. P dated January 24, 2000, the hearing officer stated that the claimant had called to her attention that the claimant contended that Dr. P did not conduct three sets of measurements and asked if he did so. In a letter dated January 29, 2000, Dr. P assured the hearing officer that he took the required three measurements during the examination; stated that it was quite clear to him, Dr. P, that the motion was invalid during the examination and did not meet the criteria in the AMA Guides; and said he would be glad to examine the claimant in the presence of a witness. Apparently the hearing officer provided documents to the parties and requested that they submit briefs. In a letter dated February 16, 2000, the claimant stated that he received the request for a brief in lieu of an appearance; that the hearing officer had submitted two letters to Dr. P; that he had responded to her with copies to all parties; and that he disagreed with the responses of Dr. P and requested that he be sent for another examination with a witness present and that the hearing officer render a decision that his IR is 16% as assigned by his treating doctor.
Under the circumstances, it would have been preferable for the hearing officer to have included as exhibits the letters the claimant sent to her. However, we have reviewed the letters the claimant attached to his request for review, and the failure of the hearing officer to include them in the record did not result in reversible error. In addition, she should have included as a hearing officer’s exhibit, or as hearing officer exhibits if there were separate letters to the claimant and the carrier, her correspondence to the claimant and the carrier.
The hearing officer is the trier of fact and is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence and of the weight and credibility to be given to the evidence. Section 410.165(a). The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of any witness’s testimony because the finder of fact judges the credibility of each and every witness, the weight to assign to each witness’s testimony, and resolves conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony. Taylor v. Lewis, 553 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93426, decided July 5, 1993. This is equally true regarding medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The hearing officer obtained additional information from the designated doctor, considered that information and the claimant’s testimony, and resolved the conflicts against the claimant. Her determinations are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951); Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). Since we find the evidence sufficient to support the determinations of the hearing officer, we will not substitute our judgment for hers. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 94044, decided February 17, 1994.
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
Tommy W. Lueders – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. Stephens – Appeals Judge
Dorian E. Ramirez – Appeals Judge