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 26, 2000. The hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable injury does not include an injury to the low back and high blood pressure and that the claimant had no disability. The claimant appealed, urged that the determinations of the hearing officer are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust, and requested that the Appeals Panel reverse the decision of the hearing officer and render a decision in his favor on all issues. The respondent (carrier) replied, urged that the evidence is sufficient to support the decision of the hearing officer, and requested that it be affirmed.
DECISION
We affirm.
The Decision and Order of the hearing officer contains a statement of the evidence. It is undisputed that on __________, the claimant placed a tree branch in a chipper; that the branch kicked back and stuck the claimant; that the claimant’s safety helmet and glasses were knocked from his head; that part of the branch struck the claimant’s eye; that he developed an infection in the eye; and that on February 10, 2000, he went to an emergency room (ER). The claimant testified that at the time of the injury he told his supervisor that his back hurt and that he told the people in the ER that his back hurt. The ER report indicates that the claimant had a problem with is left eye and had high blood pressure. It does not mention the claimant’s back. An Employee’s Notice of Injury or Occupational Disease & Claim for Compensation (TWCC-41) dated February 15, 2000, indicates that the claimant reported that he injured his eye and back. Dr. F, a chiropractor and the claimant’s treating doctor, testified that examination and tests revealed that the claimant had a low back problem; that the claimant’s description of the injury, that included twisting, was consistent with a low back injury; that pain can cause an elevation of blood pressure; that he was not familiar with the claimant’s history concerning blood pressure and could not give an opinion as to whether the claimant’s injury caused the his high blood pressure; that he took the claimant off work; and that on May 23, 2000, he released the claimant to return to work because the claimant requested that he do so. Medical reports from Dr. F are consistent with his testimony. The claimant testified that since he was injured he worked part of two weeks, but that he could not do the type of work that he was doing when he was injured because of the pain in his back.
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, determines 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). An appeals level body is not a fact finder, and it does not normally pass upon the credibility of witnesses or substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of fact even if the evidence would support a different result. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Soto, 819 S.W.2d 619, 620 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1991, writ denied). In her Decision and Order, the hearing officer stated that she concluded that the claimant had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that his injury includes an injury to his low back and high blood pressure. The claimant contended that he could not work at wages equivalent to his preinjury wage because of his low back pain. 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. 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:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge