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 4, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on __________, and that the claimant has not had disability. The claimant appealed and the respondent (carrier) responded.
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
COMPENSABLE INJURY ISSUE
Section 401.011(10) defines “compensable injury” as “an injury that arises out of and in the course and scope of employment for which compensation is payable under this subtitle.” The claimant had the burden to prove that he was injured in the course and scope of employment. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). Conflicting evidence was presented on this issue. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the finder of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts in the evidence and determines what facts have been established. The hearing officer found that the claimant was not injured in the course and scope of his employment and concluded that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury. Concerning the claimant’s contention that the information in the medical reports supports his claim, it has been held that a fact finder is not bound by the testimony of a medical witness where the credibility of that testimony is manifestly dependent upon the credibility of the information imparted to the medical witness by the claimant. Rowland v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 489 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.). In the instant case, it is evident from the hearing officer’s discussion section of her decision that she did not find the claimant’s testimony concerning how he was injured to be credible, and that she found the statements of other witnesses to be more credible than the claimant’s testimony. We conclude that the hearing officer’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence and is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
DISABILITY ISSUE
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant has not had disability because, without a compensable injury, the claimant would not have disability as defined by Section 401.011(16).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
DOUG MAHAN
10,000 N. CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, 5TH FLOOR
DALLAS, TEXAS 75265.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge