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 October 16, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain an injury in the course and scope of employment on __________, and that she did not have disability. The claimant has appealed the adverse determinations, arguing that her evidence was sufficient. She also requests that Claimant’s Exhibit No. 9, a work schedule that was not admitted into evidence because it was untimely exchanged, be admitted. The respondent (self-insured employer) replied, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in excluding Claimant’s Exhibit No. 9 from evidence. The claimant now alleges that the document was timely exchanged, but failed to advance that argument at the CCH, merely stating that she could testify to the contents if it was not admitted. The claimant’s allegation is insufficient to establish that the hearing officer erred in not admitting the document. We cannot agree that the hearing officer acted without reference to guiding rules and principles when she excluded this document; therefore, we find no merit to this contention. Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on __________. The claimant had the burden to prove that she sustained damage or harm to the physical structure of the body, arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91028, decided October 23, 1991. There was conflicting evidence presented with regard to this issue, including the relation of different versions by the claimant of how and when the alleged injury happened. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)) and, as the trier of fact, resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence, including the medical evidence (Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ)). The Appeals Panel, an appellate-reviewing tribunal, 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 and we do not find them so in this case. 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).
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not have disability from the alleged injury. The 1989 Act requires the existence of a compensable injury as a prerequisite to a finding of disability. Section 401.011(16). Because the claimant was found not to have a compensable injury, the hearing officer properly concluded that the claimant did not have disability.
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a certified self-insured) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge