This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. On November 2, 2000, a hearing was held. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on _________, and that the claimant has not had disability. The claimant appealed and the respondent (carrier) responded.
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
The claimant testified that on her first day of work for the employer, _________, she was performing her work duties mopping under closed bathroom stall doors when she felt pain in her right shoulder. The claimant said that she reported an injury to her supervisor the day it occurred. The claimant’s supervisor stated that the claimant did not inform him that she was injured. Dr. C, the claimant’s treating doctor, testified that based on the history of the injury related to him by the claimant, the torn glenoid labrum of the claimant’s right shoulder shown on a July 2000 MRI was probably caused by the claimant’s mopping activity at work on _________. The hearing officer wrote in her decision that she did not find the claimant to be credible and found that the claimant did not sustain an injury on _________, while mopping. The hearing officer determined that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on _________, and that because the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, the claimant has not had disability.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury. Without a compensable injury the claimant would not have disability as defined by Section 401.011(16). There is conflicting evidence in this case. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence offered and of the weight and credibility to be given to the evidence. Section 410.165(a). The hearing officer’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence and is not so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.
The claimant has not shown reversible error in the hearing officer’s ruling admitting a police report into evidence over claimant’s objection as to relevancy.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
Judy L. Stephens – Appeals Judge