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 30, 2001. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on __________, and did not have disability. The claimant appealed those determinations on sufficiency grounds. In its response, the respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on __________. The claimant asserts that he sustained injuries to his head and neck repairing a guardrail on a public road, while in the course and scope of his employment. Whether the claimant sustained the alleged injuries as a result of the work-related incident on __________, was a question of fact for the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 000074, decided February 25, 2000. There was conflicting evidence presented with regard to this issue. 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 and decides what facts the evidence has established. Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The hearing officer could disbelieve the claimant’s testimony and decide that the claimant did not sustain the claimed injuries in the work-related incident of __________. We have previously recognized that the fact that the incident occurred does not necessarily result in a determination that an injury occurred. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 951547, decided October 30, 1995. Our review of the record does not reveal that the hearing officer’s injury determination is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to reverse that determination on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
Because we have affirmed the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, we likewise affirm his determination that the claimant did not have disability. By definition, the existence of a compensable injury is a prerequisite to a finding of disability. Section 401.011(16).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is SIERRA INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C.T. CORPORATION
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge