Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
Title:
APD 010330
Date:
April 1, 2001

APD 010330

April 1, 2001

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 January 17, 2001. With respect to the issues before her, the hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on ________ and that he had disability, as a result of his compensable injury, from July 24 to October 23, 2000. In its appeal, the appellant (carrier) contends that the hearing officer’s injury and disability determinations are against the great weight of the evidence. In his response to the carrier’s appeal, the claimant urges affirmance.

DECISION

Affirmed.

The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on ________ and that he had disability from July 24 to October 23, 2000. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence, including the medical evidence. Section 410.165(a); Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v.Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). Injury and disability issues can generally be established by the testimony of the claimant alone, if it is credited by the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92069, decided April 1, 1992. It was for the hearing officer, as the trier of fact, to resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and to determine what facts had been established. Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co., 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). Sufficient evidence supports the hearing officer’s injury and disability determinations, namely, the claimant’s testimony and the evidence from the claimant’s treating doctor. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the injury and disability determinations are so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. As such, no sound basis exists for us to reverse those determinations on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).

The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.

Elaine M. Chaney
Appeals Judge

CONCUR:

Judy L. S. Barnes
Appeals Judge

Philip F. O’Neill
Appeals Judge

Top