This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A hearing was convened on October 5, 2000, and again on November 8, 2000. The appellant (claimant) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the hearing officer’s determination that her compensable injury (bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome) of __________, does not include either her cervical spine (aggravation of spondylosis) or reflex sympathetic dystrophy, which he found she does not have. The respondent (carrier) asserts that the evidence is sufficient to warrant our affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in making the challenged determinations. The medical evidence was in conflict. The hearing officer states that he did not find the claimant’s testimony credible and that he gave more credence to the findings of Dr. Z, who examined the claimant for the carrier, than to the findings of Dr. S, the claimant’s treating doctor, both of whom testified at the hearing. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)) and, as the finder of fact, resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence including the medical evidence (Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ)). We do not find the challenged determinations to be so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951).
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge