This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). Following a contested case hearing held on April 23, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by determining that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on __________, and did not thereafter have disability. The claimant appeals on evidentiary sufficiency grounds. The respondent (self-insured) urges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the challenged determinations.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant testified that on __________, while working for the self-insured as an animal control officer, he injured his low back when he lifted the hind quarters of a large stray Rott dog to help the dog into a truck to be taken to the kennels. He said that four days later he awoke with a backache but went to work; that the next day his back pain was so severe he went to an emergency room; and that about a week later he concluded that his injury was job-related. He said he thinks that lifting the dog caused a low back injury because it was “the last of any physical thing that I had done.” The September 25, 2000, report of Dr. Y states a history of severe new onset of back pain since last Wednesday but does not refer to an incident involving the lifting of a dog. The September 28, 2000, report of Dr. G states that the claimant complains of back and neck pain “present for 10 months” and that the claimant “cannot relate any specific injury.”
The hearing officer felt that the evidence reflected that the claimant was essentially speculating as to the source of his low back pain. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)) and, as the trier of fact, resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence (Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ)). The Appeals Panel will not disturb the challenged factual findings of a hearing officer unless they are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust and we do not find them so in this case. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); 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:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge