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. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) had not sustained a compensable injury on __________ (all dates are 2001 unless otherwise noted), and that the claimant did not have disability.
The claimant appealed, contending that his testimony and evidence was more credible than that to the contrary. The respondent (carrier) responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant testified that on __________ he was working with his supervisor, DN, who was operating a bobcat tractor. The claimant testified that a “bucket” attached to the bobcat hit him in the left foot and caused him to twist his knee. DN denies such an incident and testified that the bucket was very heavy and that if it had hit the claimant, it would have “pulverized” the claimant’s foot. The claimant continued to work 60 or 70 hours a week for the next two weeks before seeing a doctor on __________. The claimant was diagnosed as having a contusion of his left foot. The claimant stated that the next day or so he went home to Mexico and was in Mexico for eight or nine weeks before returning to the United States. The claimant asserts that he had disability, as defined in Section 401.011(16), from __________ to July 24 or 25.
The hearing officer found that the claimant’s testimony was “not persuasive” because of lack of detail and because “the bucket would not have hit [the claimant’s] foot without pulverizing it.” Clearly there was conflicting evidence and the hearing officer found DN’s testimony more credible than the claimant’s. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)), resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence (Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ)), and determines what facts have been established from the conflicting evidence. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Escalera, 385 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.). There is sufficient evidence to support the hearing officer’s decision. 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 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 decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is ASSOCIATION CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
HAROLD FISCHER, PRESIDENT
3420 EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 200
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78731.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge