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 April 17, 2001. With respect to the issues before him, 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 January 11, 2001, to the date of the hearing on April 17, 2001. In its appeal, the appellant (carrier) argues that the hearing officer’s injury determination is against the great weight of the evidence. In addition, the carrier challenges the hearing officer’s disability determination on the ground that he cannot have disability because he did not sustain a compensable injury. The claimant did not respond to the carrier’s appeal. He also did not appeal the hearing officer’s determination that his disability did not begin until January 11, 2001.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on __________. That issue presented a question of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. Section 410.165(a) provides that the contested case hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence as well as of the weight and credibility that is to be given the evidence. It was for the hearing officer, as trier of fact, to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence and to decide what facts the evidence has established. Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co., 508 S.W.2d 701, 702 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). When reviewing a hearing officer’s decision for factual sufficiency of the evidence, we should reverse such decision only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). In this instance, there was conflicting evidence on the issue of whether the claimant sustained a compensable injury. The hearing officer resolved that conflict in favor of the claimant and he was acting within his province as the hearing officer in so doing. Nothing in our review of the record demonstrates that the challenged determination is so against the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to reverse the hearing officer’s injury determination on appeal. Cain.
The success of the carrier’s challenge to the disability determination is dependent upon the success of its argument that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury. Given our affirmance of the hearing officer’s injury determination, we likewise affirm his determination that the claimant had disability from January 11, 2001, through the date of the hearing on April 17, 2001.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge