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 March 22, 2000. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on __________, and did not have disability. The claimant appealed, contending that these determinations are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The respondent (carrier) replies that the decision is correct, supported by sufficient evidence, and should be affirmed.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant worked as a truck driver. He testified that on the morning of November 11, 1999, he delivered a load consisting of 14 pallets of cement in bags and was told by his dispatcher that he had to return to the yard with 115 empty pallets. He objected to this because, he said, it involved loading the pallets and securing them and he thought he should be paid for the extra work. He said he made this objection to the dispatcher, to Mr. N the terminal manager, and to Mr. N’s boss, in turn, without satisfaction. He contended that in the process of lifting and straightening the pallets he injured his low back. He returned to the yard about 2:00 p.m. with the pallets and again complained to the dispatcher and Mr. N about not getting paid. He came back to the yard for a 5:00 p.m. delivery and found his truck locked. He said he asked Mr. N why and was told he was fired for calling Mr. N’s boss about the pallets. Eventually the police were called to escort him off the premises. He returned the next morning to pick up his paycheck and then told Mr. N he hurt his back loading the pallets.
Mr. N testified about the running disagreement he had with the claimant over bringing back pallets without getting paid for the extra work. When the claimant returned to the yard with the pallets, Mr. N said the claimant was upset and walked out after further discussing it. Mr. N said the claimant never mentioned any injury nor did he appear injured. Mr. N said he decided to fire the claimant for insubordination for just walking away from him and for that reason secured the claimant’s truck. When the claimant came back later that afternoon, Mr. N said he told the claimant he was fired and the claimant got angry. Again, according to Mr. N, the claimant never mentioned an injury. When the claimant came the next morning for his check, Mr. N said the claimant told him he was going to the doctor. Mr. N asked why and the claimant, according to Mr. N, only then told Mr. N that he hurt his back loading and straightening the pallets. There was medical evidence suggestive of a strain and/or lumbar herniation.
The claimant had the burden of proving he sustained a compensable injury as claimed. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). Whether he did so was a question of fact for the hearing officer to decide and could be proved by the claimant’s testimony alone if found credible by the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93560, decided August 19, 1993. The hearing officer considered the evidence and did not find the claimant credible in his account of how he injured himself. In his appeal, the claimant argues that his testimony and medical evidence were credible and a decision should be rendered in his favor. Section 410.165(a) provides that the hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. We will reverse a factual determination of a hearing officer only if that determination is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); Pool v. Ford Motor Company, 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). Applying this standard of review to the record of this case, we decline to substitute our opinion of the credibility of the claimant for that of the hearing officer, but find the evidence sufficient to support his determination that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury as claimed.
We also find no error in the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant did not have disability, as the 1989 Act requires a finding of the existence of a compensable injury as prerequisite to a finding of disability. Section 401.011(16).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
Alan C. Ernst – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Tommy W. Lueders – Appeals Judge