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 21, 2002. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the ________________, compensable injury includes the respondent’s (claimant) neck and headaches. The appellant (carrier) appeals, arguing that the hearing officer erred in determining that the compensable injury includes the claimant’s neck and headaches. The claimant responds contending that the determination is supported by sufficient evidence.
DECISION
Affirmed.
Extent of injury is a factual question for the hearing officer to resolve. The carrier essentially challenges the weight that the hearing officer gave to the evidence and testimony of the claimant. 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 the weight and credibility that is to be given the evidence. Conflicting evidence was presented regarding the extent of the compensable injury. It was for the hearing officer, as trier of fact, to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence, including the medical evidence. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ); Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness. Aetna Insurance Company v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, no writ). In this case, the mechanism of the accepted concussion injury fully supports the reasonable medical probability that the concussion resulted in neck injuries and headaches.
When reviewing a hearing officer’s decision for factual sufficiency of the evidence, we should reverse such 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). Applying this standard, we find no grounds to reverse the decision of the hearing officer.
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
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
CT CORPORATION SYSTEMS
350 NORTH ST. PAUL, SUITE 2900
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Susan M. Kelley
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge