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 3, 2001. She determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on ___________, and did not have disability. The claimant contends on appeal that the hearing officer erred in making these determinations. The respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant had the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he sustained a compensable injury on ___________, and thereafter had disability. These issues presented the hearing officer with questions of fact to resolve. 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 Insurance Co. of Newark, New Jersey, 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 decision that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on ___________, and, consequently, did not have disability.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the carrier is ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Gary L. Kilgore
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge