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 June 9, 2000. The hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) also sustained a compensable cervical injury in addition to the facial injury on __________, and that this included cervical disc protrusions. The appellant (carrier) appealed the hearing officer’s determination of this issue on sufficiency grounds. The claimant responded that the evidence supports the hearing officer’s determinations.
DECISION
We affirm.
Carrier contends the hearing officer erred in determining that claimant sustained a compensable cervical injury, which includes disc protrusions, in addition to the facial injury he sustained on __________. All of carrier’s complaints involve factors that were for the hearing officer to consider in making her fact determinations. To the extent that the evidence was conflicting, that was a matter for the hearing officer as fact finder to determine. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, N.J., 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). We will not substitute our judgment for that of the hearing officer because her determinations are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
Judy L. Stephens
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley
Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge