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 5, 2002. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the respondent’s (claimant) compensable injury of __________, does include a herniated disc at L5-S1 and bulging disc at L4-L5, and that he had disability, as a result of his compensable injury, from December 7, 2001, through the date of the hearing. In its appeal, the appellant (carrier) asserts error in the hearing officer’s extent-of-injury and disability determinations. In his response to the carrier’s appeal, the claimant urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
Extent of injury and disability are questions of fact for the hearing officer to decide. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93613, decided August 24, 1993; Appeal No. 93560, supra. Section 410.165(a) provides that the hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence as well as of the weight and credibility that is to be given the evidence. A claimant’s testimony alone may establish that an injury has occurred, and disability has resulted from it. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Harrison, 744 S.W.2d 298, 299 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ). When reviewing a hearing officer’s decision for factual sufficiency of the evidence we will reverse the decision only if it is so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and 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). In challenging the hearing officer’s extent-of-injury and disability determinations, the carrier emphasizes the same factors it emphasized at the hearing. The significance, if any, of those factors was a matter for the hearing officer, as the fact finder, to determine. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the challenged determinations are so against the great weight as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to reverse those determinations on appeal.
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
COMMODORE 1
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Daniel R. Barry – Appeals Judge