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 December 18, 2001. With respect to the single issue before her, the hearing officer determined that the respondent’s (claimant) compensable injury of ______________, extends to and includes injury to the C4-5 and C5-6 discs in his cervical spine. In its appeal, the appellant (carrier) argues that the hearing officer’s extent-of-injury determination is against the great weight of the evidence. In his response to the carrier’s appeal, the claimant urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The issue of whether the claimant’s compensable injury extends to and includes an injury to the C4-5 and C5-6 discs was a question 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). 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 carrier contends that the hearing officer’s extent-of-injury determination is against the great weight of the evidence. In so arguing, the carrier emphasizes the same factors on appeal as it emphasized at the hearing. The significance, if any, of those factors was a matter left to the hearing officer in determining whether the claimant had sustained his burden of proving that his injury extended to a cervical disc injury. The hearing officer resolved the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence in favor of the claimant and she was acting within her province as the fact finder in so doing. Our review of the record does not demonstrate that the challenged determination is 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 that determination on appeal. Cain; Pool.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS, SUITE 750, COMMODORE 1
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge