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 28, 2000. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on __________, and that he did not have disability. The claimant appealed these determinations on sufficiency grounds. The respondent self-insured (Acarrier herein) responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
DECISION
We affirm.
Claimant contends the hearing officer erred in determining that he did not sustain a compensable injury and that he did not have disability. The hearing officer summarized and discussed the facts in his decision and order. Briefly, claimant said he was injured while working as a bus monitor during __________. He said the bus jerked when it hit curbs and when the brakes were suddenly applied and that he sometimes slipped when the bus was in motion. The applicable law regarding injury and disability issues and our standard of review are set forth in Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ); Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92083, decided April 16, 1992; Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); and Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 950456, decided May 9, 1995.
The matter claimant raised in his brief involved credibility and fact issues, which the hearing officer resolved. A review of the decision and order indicates that the hearing officer simply did not believe that claimant sustained an injury working on the bus, as claimant claimed. The hearing officer was acting within his province as fact finder in deciding what evidence he believed. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determination that claimant did not sustain a compensable injury is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain. Because claimant did not have a compensable injury, he did not have disability. Disability, by definition, requires that there must have been a compensable injury.
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
Judy L. Stephens
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge