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 8, 2001. With respect to the issues before her, the hearing officer determined that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable left ankle injury of __________, does not extend to or include an injury to his low back and that the claimant had disability, as a result of his compensable left ankle injury, from __________ to October 3, 2001, but not from October 4, 2001, through the date of the hearing. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that there was no dispute regarding the claimant’s entitlement to temporary income benefits for the period from __________, to May 14, 2001. In his appeal, the claimant argues that the hearing officer’s determinations that the compensable injury does not include the low back and that he did not have disability from October 4, 2001, through the date of the hearing are against the great weight of the evidence. In its response to the claimant’s appeal, the respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The issues of whether the claimant’s compensable injury extended to or included a low back injury and whether he had disability for the period from October 4, 2001, through the date of the hearing as a result of his compensable ankle injury were questions of fact for the hearing officer. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence and of its weight and credibility. Section 410.165(a). The hearing officer resolves 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). Generally, injury and disability may be proven by the testimony of the claimant alone, if it is believed by the hearing officer. Gee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 765 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. 1989). When reviewing a hearing officer’s decision, we will reverse such decision only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer was acting within her province as the fact finder in determining that the claimant did not sustain his burden of proving that his compensable injury included a low back injury or that he had disability after the carrier’s required medical examination doctor returned the claimant to work without restrictions. Our review of the record does not demonstrate that the challenged determinations are so contrary to the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Therefore, no sound basis exists for us to reverse them on appeal. Cain; Pool.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
JAVIER GONZALEZ
3421 WEST WILLIAM CANNON DRIVE
SUITE 131
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78745.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge