This appeal arises under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). On October 23, 2001, a contested case hearing was held. With respect to the issues before her, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on ___________, and did not have disability. On appeal, the claimant expresses disagreement with these determinations and contends that the hearing officer did not review all of the evidence. The respondent (carrier) urges affirmance and requests that the new evidence, which the claimant attached to his appeal, not be given consideration.
DECISION
Affirmed.
In deciding whether the hearing officer’s decision is sufficiently supported by the evidence, we will only consider the evidence admitted at the hearing. We will not generally consider evidence, which was not submitted into the record and which is raised for the first time on appeal. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92255, decided July 27, 1992. To determine whether evidence offered for the first time on appeal requires that case be remanded for further consideration, we consider whether it came to the appellant’s knowledge after the hearing, whether it is cumulative, whether it was through lack of diligence that it was not offered at the hearing, and whether it is so material that it would probably produce a different result. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93111, decided March 29, 1993; Black v. Wills, 758 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1988, no writ). We do not find that to be the case with the report attached to the claimant’s request for review. Although the claimant explains that he did not have the report at the time of the hearing, the report was prepared in April 2001, and no explanation is given as to why it could not have been obtained prior to the hearing. Therefore, the evidence attached to the claimant’s appeal does not necessitate a remand.
A “compensable injury” means “an injury that arises out of and in the course and scope of employment for which compensation is payable under this subtitle.” Section 401.011(10). “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 claimant had the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he sustained a compensable injury on __________ and thereafter had disability, and these issues presented the hearing officer with questions of fact to resolve. Injury and disability determinations can be established by the claimant’s testimony alone, if believed by the hearing officer. Gee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 765 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. 1989).
In the present case, the hearing officer determined that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury and, consequently, did not have disability. The hearing officer is the trier of fact and is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence and of the weight and credibility to be given to the evidence. Section 410.165(a). Where there are conflicts in the evidence, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts and determines what facts the evidence has established. 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 to be so in this case. 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).
We briefly address the claimant’s contention that the hearing officer did not consider all of the evidence. Specifically, the claimant contends that his written statement (Claimant’s Exhibit No. 7) was not considered. We note that the hearing officer is not required to detail all of the evidence both supporting and contradicting her determinations. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93164, decided April 19, 1993 (Unpublished), and cases cited therein. We are satisfied that, as she states in her decision, the hearing officer based her findings of fact and conclusions of law on all of the evidence presented, despite the fact that a particular piece of evidence was not specifically discussed in the decision.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the carrier is TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge