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 June 3, 2002. With respect to the issues before her, the hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on ______________, and that the appellant (carrier) is not relieved from liability pursuant to Section 409.002 because the claimant timely reported her injury to her employer. The carrier appealed, arguing that the hearing officer’s determinations are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The claimant filed a response, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on ______________. That issue presented a question of fact for the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93613, decided August 24, 1993. Section 410.165(a) provides that the hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. As the fact finder, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and determines what facts the evidence has established. Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co., 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). The hearing officer was acting within her province as the finder of fact in crediting the evidence presented by the claimant and in determining that she sustained a compensable injury. Nothing in our review of the record demonstrates that the hearing officer’s injury determination is so against the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to disturb that determination on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer likewise did not err in determining that the claimant timely reported her injury to her employer. As the fact finder, the hearing officer was permitted to credit the claimant’s testimony that she reported her injury to her employer on the day it happened over contrary evidence presented by the carrier. Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). Our review of the record does not reveal that the notice determination is so contrary to the great weight of the evidence as to compel its reversal on appeal. Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order 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
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge