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 March 26, 2002. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on ____________, and that he did not have disability. In his appeal, the claimant essentially argues that the hearing officer’s determinations are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The file does not contain a response from the respondent (carrier).
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant had the burden to prove that he was injured in the course and scope of his employment. There is conflicting evidence in this case. The 1989 Act makes the hearing officer the sole judge of the weight and credibility to be given to the evidence. Section 410.165(a). The hearing officer was acting within her province as the fact finder in discounting the claimant’s testimony and in determining that the claimant did not sustain his burden of proving that he was injured in an incident at work on ____________. Our review of the record does not reveal that the challenged determination is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust. Thus, no sound basis exists for us to disturb that determination on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
Given our affirmance of the hearing officer’s injury determination, we likewise affirm her determination that the claimant did not have disability. By definition, the existence of a compensable injury is a prerequisite to a finding of disability. Section 401.011(16).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is ZURICH NORTH AMERICA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
GARY SUDOL
ZURICH NORTH AMERICA
12222 MERIT DRIVE, SUITE 700
DALLAS, TEXAS 75251.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge