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 June 13, 2001. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on _____________, and that she did not have disability. In her appeal, the claimant essentially argues that the hearing officer’s determinations are against the great weight of the evidence. In its response to the claimant’s appeal, the respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). There was conflicting evidence on the issue of injury. The hearing officer resolved the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence against the claimant and he was acting within his role as fact finder in determining that the claimant did not sustain her burden of proof on the issue. Nothing in our review of the record indicates 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 disturb that determination on appeal. Pool v. Ford Motor Company, 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986); Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
Given our affirmance of the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, we likewise affirm his determination that the claimant did not have disability. By definition, in the absence of a compensable injury, there can be no disability. Section 401.011(16).
Finally, in her appeal, the claimant asserts that the poor translation service at the hearing deprived her of due process. No objection to the quality of the translation service was made at the hearing and, as such, the claimant did not preserve any error associated with the quality of the translation. We note, however, that our review of the tape recording of the hearing does not indicate that the translation was inadequate.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge