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 October 16, 2001. With respect to the issues before her, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on __________; that the respondent (carrier) is not relieved from liability because of the claimant’s failure to timely notify his employer; that the claimant is not barred from pursuing workers’ compensation benefits because of an election to receive benefits under a group health insurance policy; and that the claimant did not have disability. On appeal, the claimant expresses disagreement with the determination that he did not sustain a compensable injury. The carrier urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
A “compensable injury” means “an injury that arises out of and in the course and scope of employment for which compensation is payable under this subtitle.” Section 401.011(10). The claimant had the burden to prove that he was injured in the course and scope of his employment. Reed v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 535 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Whether or not the incident, which occurred on __________, resulted in a continuation of the symptoms of the claimant’s existing spinal stenosis or whether it established a new and distinct injury is generally a question of fact for the hearing officer to decide. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 962183, decided December 16, 1996.
The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)) and it is for the hearing officer to resolve such conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence as were present in this case (Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co., 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ)). As an appellate reviewing body, we 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. 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). We are satisfied that the evidence sufficiently supports the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on __________.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the carrier is AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 N. ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge