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 24, 2001. The hearing officer determined that: (1) the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury in the form of a repetitive trauma occupational disease to his neck and right shoulder on __________; and (2) the claimant did not have disability resulting from the claimed injury. The claimant appealed the hearing officer’s determination on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. The respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury in the form of a repetitive trauma occupational disease on __________. The claimant had the burden to prove that he suffered damage or harm to the physical structure of his body occurring as a result of repetitious, physically traumatic activities that occurred over time and arose out of and in the course and scope of employment. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 992486, decided December 29, 1999; Section 401.011(34) and (36). There was conflicting evidence presented with regard to this issue. 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 including the medical evidence (Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ)). The hearing officer indicates she was persuaded by the claimant’s testimony. The Appeals Panel, an appellate reviewing tribunal, 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 hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not have disability from the claimed injury. The 1989 Act requires the existence of a compensable injury as a prerequisite to a finding of disability. Section 401.011(16). Because the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, the hearing officer properly concluded that the claimant did not have disability.
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