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 May 22, 2001. The hearing officer held that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain injury in the course and scope of his employment, and that any inability to work was not due to a compensable injury.
The claimant has appealed and argues that he sustained his burden of proof. The respondent (carrier) responded, urging affirmance.
DECISION
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision.
The hearing officer did not err in concluding that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury or have disability relating to such injury. The claimant described an incident in which one foot slipped as he was getting down from the cab of his truck, while one foot remained on the cab. There was inconsistent testimony as to whether the claimant worked the next day or not and what he reported to a hospital emergency room three days later and to his supervisors. The claimant continued to work for several months at his regular job following the alleged injury, and did not file a claim for workers’ compensation until after he had an altercation with a supervisor and walked off the job. While the claimant said he had not returned to “full time” work, there was evidence that he continued to work part time, perhaps intermittent, as an automobile mechanic for a local service station.
The burden is on the claimant to prove that an injury occurred within the course and scope of employment. Service Lloyds Insurance Co. v. Martin, 855 S.W.2d 816 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, no writ); Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Page, 553 S.W.2d 98 (Tex. 1977). A trier of fact is not required to accept a claimant’s testimony at face value, even if not specifically contradicted by other evidence. Bullard v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, 609 S.W.2d 621 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1980, no writ).
The hearing officer is the sole judge of the relevance, materiality, weight, and credibility of the evidence presented at the hearing. Section 410.165(a). The decision should not be set aside because different inferences and conclusions may be drawn upon review, even when the record contains evidence that would lend itself to different inferences. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ).
The decision of the hearing officer will be set aside only if the evidence supporting the hearing officer’s determination is so weak or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company
v. Middleman, 661 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.). That was not the case here, and we affirm the decision and order.
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge