This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on December 4, 2000. The hearing officer held that the appellant’s (claimant) injury of __________, stipulated to include her left wrist, included thoracic and lumbar strain but not many other conditions that she sought to include. He held that she had disability beginning March 22, 2000, to the date of the CCH.
The claimant has appealed the extent-of-injury finding. There is no appeal of the disability holding. The respondent (carrier) responds, urging the Appeals Panel to affirm the hearing officer’s decision.
DECISION
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision.
The hearing officer did not err in holding that the compensable injury did not extend to the claimant’s bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, right leg fracture, cervical area, knees, and shoulders. The parties stipulated that the claimant injured her left wrist and ribs. It was for the hearing officer, as trier of fact, to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701, 702 (Tex. Civ. App.- Amarillo 1974, no writ). In considering all the evidence in the record, we cannot agree that the findings of the hearing officer are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly wrong and unjust. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951). We affirm the decision and order.
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge