This appeal arises pursuant to Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). On October 23, 2000, a hearing was held. The claimant appealed. There was no response found in the file from the carrier. The hearing officer decided:
The claimant did not sustain a compensable injury in the form of an occupational disease.
Because the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, the claimant did not have disability.
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
There was conflicting evidence presented at the hearing. Included in the evidence was the written opinion of Dr. X, a medical doctor, that while injuries such as the claimant’s could be caused by repetitive activities, it was his opinion that the claimant’s job was not implicated in the claimant’s injuries. Dr. X’s opinion on the absence of a relationship between the claimant’s injury and her job was based on the doctor’s review of a videotape of the operation of the machine which the claimant asserted she had worked on for many years.
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). While a claimant’s testimony alone may be sufficient to prove an injury, the testimony of a claimant is not conclusive but only raises a factual issue for the trier of fact. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91065, decided December 16, 1991. The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of any witness’s 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). Only were we to conclude, which we do not in this case, that the hearing officer’s determinations were so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust would there be a sound basis to disturb those determinations. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951); Pool v. Ford Motor Company, 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 judgement for his. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 94044, decided February 17, 1994.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
Kenneth A. Huchton – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge