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 determined that the appellant (claimant) reached maximum medical improvement on April 25, 2000, with a zero percent impairment rating (IR), in accordance with the report of the designated doctor. She further found that the great weight of other medical evidence was not contrary to this report.
The claimant has appealed, arguing that the hearing officer’s decision is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unfair or unjust. The claimant argues that the designated doctor disregarded the fact that the claimant had an injury and failed to rate it. The respondent (carrier) recites facts that support the decision.
DECISION
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision.
An IR is given not for injury but for “impairment” from an injury. The report of a Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission-appointed designated doctor is given presumptive weight. Sections 408.122(c) and 408.125(e). The amount of evidence needed to overcome the presumption, a “great weight,” is more than a preponderance, which would be only greater than 50%. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92412, decided September 28, 1992. Medical evidence, not lay testimony, is the evidence required to overcome the designated doctor’s report. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92164, decided June 5, 1992. A mere difference of medical opinion by the treating doctor will ordinarily not result in overcoming the presumptive weight accorded to the designated doctor. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 960034, decided February 5, 1996.
Conflicting medical evidence was presented. It is the hearing officer, as the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)), who 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.). This is equally true of medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). 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 AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS, SUITE 750
COMMODORE I
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge