Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
APD 020054
January 24, 2002

APD 020054

January 24, 2002

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 26, 2001. The record closed on December 3, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury in the course and scope of his employment on __________, and that the claimant does not have disability as a result of the alleged injury. The claimant appealed, arguing that the hearing officer’s determinations are against the great weight of the evidence and incorrect. The respondent (carrier) filed a response, urging affirmance.



The hearing officer did not err in finding that there was no compensable injury or disability. The evidence was in diametric opposition on several key points. The hearing officer indicated that his assessment of credibility was based upon his observation and listening to the testimony. 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 hearing officer states that he did not credit the testimony of the claimant. 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 LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is


350 N. ST. PAUL, SUITE 2900


Susan M. Kelley
Appeals Judge


Judy L. S. Barnes

Appeals Judge

Thomas A. Knapp
Appeals Judge