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 23, 2001. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on ___________, specifically a broken nose; that the compensable injury does not extend to the right knee; that the claimant’s deviated septum was not caused or aggravated by the compensable injury; that the respondent’s (self-insured) contest of compensability was not based on newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered at an earlier date; that the injury was not caused by the claimant’s horseplay or wilful intention to unlawfully injure another person; and that the claimant did not have disability resulting from the ___________, injury. The claimant contends on appeal that the determinations relating to disability and compensability of the right knee and the deviated septum are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. In its response to the claimant’s appeal, the self-insured urges affirmance. The self-insured did not appeal the hearing officer’s determinations that the claimant sustained a compensable injury, that its contest of compensability was not based on newly discovered evidence, and that the claimant’s injury was not caused by horseplay or her wilful intention to unlawfully injure another person. Thus, those determinations have become final pursuant to Section 410.169.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant had the burden to prove that the compensable injury, which she sustained on ___________, extends to and includes the right knee and a deviated septum. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). Extent of injury is a question of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93613, decided August 24, 1993. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). It is for the hearing officer to resolve conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and to determine what facts the evidence has established. Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co., 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). The Appeals Panel 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 so find them here. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 224 S.W.2d 660 (1951). Thus, we affirm the determination that the claimant’s compensable injury does not extend to or include her right knee or deviated septum.
Disability is likewise a question of fact to be determined by the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93560, decided August 19, 1993. “Disability” is defined as “the inability because of a compensable injury to obtain and retain employment at wages equivalent to the preinjury wage.” Section 401.011(16). The hearing officer was not persuaded that the claimant had disability as a result of her compensable broken nose. That determination is no so against the great weight of the evidence as to compel its reversal on appeal. Cain, supra.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the self-insured is (a self-insured governmental entity) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
NAME
ADDRSSS
CITY, STATE, ZIP
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge