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 August 30, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant herein) did not sustain a compensable repetitive trauma injury. The claimant appeals contending the evidence she presented proved she suffered a compensable injury and that, in the alternative, the Appeals Panel should remand the case to the hearing officer so he can consider newly discovered evidence supporting her contention that she suffered a compensable injury. The respondent (self-insured herein) replies that there is sufficient evidence to support the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant did not suffer a compensable injury and that it objects to remanding the case to the hearing officer for him to consider additional evidence.
DECISION
Finding sufficient evidence to support the decision of the hearing officer and no reversible error in the record, we affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The question of whether an injury occurred is one of fact. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93854, decided November 9, 1993; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93449, decided July 21, 1993. 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. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701, 702 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). This is equally true regarding medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286, 290 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness. Taylor v. Lewis, 553 S.W.2d 153, 161 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Aetna Insurance Co. v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, no writ). An appeals-level body is not a fact finder and does not normally pass upon the credibility of witnesses or substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of fact, even if the evidence would support a different result. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Soto, 819 S.W.2d 619, 620 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1991, writ denied). 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 great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). In the present case there was conflicting evidence regarding whether or not the claimant suffered a compensable injury. Applying our standard of review, we find no basis for reversing the hearing officer’s factual determination. This is so even though another fact finder might have drawn other inferences and reached other conclusions. Salazar v. Hill, 551 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
Nor do we find merit in the claimant’s contention that we should remand the case to the hearing officer for him to consider additional evidence. The claimant asserts that she received a report from the carrier’s required medical examination (RME) doctor which supports her contention that she suffered a compensable injury. The carrier responds that this evidence should not be considered because the claimant did not ask for a continuance or ask that the record of the CCH be held open for presentation of further evidence. The carrier also points out that the claimant did not attach a copy of the report of the RME doctor to her appeal.
First, we note that we will not generally consider evidence not submitted into the record, and raised for the first time on appeal. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92255, decided July 27, 1992. To determine whether evidence offered for the first time on appeal requires that case be remanded for further consideration, we consider whether it came to appellant’s knowledge after the hearing, whether it is cumulative, whether it was through lack of diligence that it was not offered at the hearing, and whether it is so material that it would probably produce a different result. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93111, decided March 29, 1993; Black v. Wills, 758 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1988, no writ). In the present case we find that the claimant has failed to establish that the RME doctor’s report met either the second or the fourth prongs of this test.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
At the CCH the self-insured represented that its true corporate name is (SELF-INSURED) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge