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 November 12, 2001. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by concluding that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on _____________; that the claimant timely notified her employer pursuant to Section 409.001; and that the claimant did not have disability resulting from the injury sustained on _____________. The appellant (carrier) appealed, arguing that the determination that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on _____________, is overwhelmingly against the great weight of the credible evidence. The appeals file does not contain a response from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant alleged that she was injured when she fell leaving her place of employment. 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). The hearing officer found the testimony of the claimant credible. There were business records from the employer in evidence that corroborated the claimant’s testimony that she reported the fall to a manager the night of its occurrence. Further, a lumbar MRI on March 30, 2001, showed a two-millimeter generalized bulging of the annulus at L4-L5, desiccation, and annular tissue at L5-S1.
The claimant had the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she sustained a compensable injury on _____________, and that issue presented the hearing officer with a question of fact to resolve. The carrier contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support the determination that the claimant sustained a compensable injury. Generally, injury and disability 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). The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence pursuant to Section 410.165(a) and it is for the hearing officer to resolve such conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence as were present in this case. Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co. of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). The hearing officer resolves the conflicts and determines what facts the evidence has established. Our review of the record does not reveal that the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant sustained a compensable injury 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, 176 (Tex. 1986); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 224 S.W.2d 660 (1951).
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge