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 17, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on __________; that the claimant has not had disability; and that the respondent (carrier) is not relieved of liability (under Section 406.032(1)(A)) because the claimed injury did not occur while the claimant was in a state of intoxication (as defined by Section 401.013). The claimant appealed the hearing officer’s determinations that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury and that he has not had disability. There is no appeal of the hearing officer’s determination on the intoxication issue.
DECISION
The hearing officer’s decision is affirmed.
COMPENSABLE INJURY ISSUE
Section 401.011(10) defines a “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 during the course and scope of his employment. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). Conflicting evidence was presented at the CCH. Concerning the claimant’s contention that the information in certain medical reports supports his claim, it has been held that a fact finder if 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.). The hearing officer determined that the claimant’s testimony concerning the circumstances of his claimed injury was not credible in light of the other evidence presented at the CCH. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). The hearing officer, as the trier of fact, resolves the conflicts in the evidence and determines what facts have been established. The hearing officer found that the claimant did not sustain an injury while in the course and scope of his employment, and concluded that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury. 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
Section 401.011(16) defines “disability” as “the inability because of a compensable injury to obtain and retain employment at wages equivalent to the preinjury wage.” 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 the 1989 Act.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
MARCUS CHARLES MERRITT
6600 CAMPUS CIRCLE DRIVE EAST, SUITE 200
IRVING, TEXAS 75063.
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge