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 May 11, 2000. With regard to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) had not sustained a compensable injury on __________, that the alleged injury did not extend to the lumbar spine, and that because there was not compensable injury, the claimant has not had any disability.
The claimant appealed, contending generally that the medical evidence and the claimant’s testimony established that the event on __________, had injured her left wrist and hand, left ankle, cervical and lumbar spine, and right hip and that she had disability therefrom. The claimant requests that we reverse the hearing officer’s decision and render a decision in her favor. The carrier responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant testified that as she was walking out of the customer service area on __________, a floor mat was buckled or wrinkled, causing her to lose her balance; and that she caught herself on the wall with her left hand, twisting her torso and injuring her left ankle, cervical and lumbar spine, and right hip. The claimant reported her injury and saw her treating doctor, Dr. TC, D.C., the same day. There were other workers in the area, but apparently no one witnessed the stumble or heard any commotion. This case is complicated by the fact that the claimant has had a number of other claims with at least one in ________, which involved losing her balance and hitting her knee on a desk, which involved similar alleged injuries.
At the CCH, there was a good deal of testimony regarding the mechanics of the fall and both parties drew rough diagrams of the area. Both sides argued the evidence for the other was not credible. Dr. TC testified at the CCH that in his opinion the claimant sustained a sprain/strain of the left hand/wrist, sprain/strain of the right hip, sprain/strain of the left ankle, and sprain/strain of the right cervical area and that he took the claimant off work that day. Dr. TC testified regarding how the mechanism of the stumble could cause the various injuries. The carrier presented witnesses who testified regarding the claimant’s attitude, counseling she had received, and work demands the claimant had made. The carrier also presented a report dated March 14, 2000, from Dr. AC, which essentially found no objective evidence of an injury. The claimant dismissed Dr. AC’s report as being a record review only; however, Dr. AC had examined the claimant for one or more of her prior injuries.
The hearing officer, in his Statement of the Evidence, comments:
Claimant has had a number of injuries and alleged injuries over the last three and one-half years. [Dr. TC] has been the treating physician for all of them since 1998. At the time of this alleged incident on ________ [sic, should be 2000], [Dr. TC] was maintaining at least three sets of records for the treatment of Claimant, treating some of the same body parts on different days of the week and charging each treatment to a different claim file. Even after the new incident on ________, it appears that [Dr. TC] continued to treat on various days for old claims, even though there was a “new injury” to some of the body parts.
* * * *
While she could have possibly injured her left hand or wrist in such a stumble, she was receiving active treatment, and had complaints of left wrist pain and swelling, in the days immediately preceding ________, so no new injury is proven, even to that body part.
Claimant’s history of conflict with the employer and co-workers leads to the conclusion that this claim was filed to obtain time off work, or for some type of retaliation. Whatever the rationale, I find that there was no injury from an alleged incident on __________, and therefore, no period of disability.
The claimant contends that the medical evidence and the claimant’s testimony establish that her claimed injuries were sustained in the __________, incident and that she had disability therefrom. Whether an injury occurred and the extent of that alleged injury are factual determinations to be resolved by the hearing officer. Section 410.165(a) provides that the hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence as well as the weight and credibility that is to be given the evidence. It was for the hearing officer, as trier of fact, to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). 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 trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness. Aetna Insurance Company v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, no writ). 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 respective witnesses for that of the hearing officer.
In that we are affirming the hearing officer’s decision that the claimant did not have a compensable injury, the claimant cannot, by definition in Section 401.011(16), have disability.
Upon review of the record submitted, we find no reversible error. We will not disturb the hearing officer’s determinations unless they are 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). We do not so find and, consequently, the decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Tommy W. Lueders – Appeals Judge
Judy L. Stephens – Appeals Judge