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 August 16, 2002. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on ______________; that she did not timely report her alleged injury to her employer; and that she did not have disability because she did not sustain a compensable injury. In her appeal, the claimant argues that those determinations are against the great weight of the evidence. In its response to the claimant’s appeal, the respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury and that she did not timely report her alleged injury. The claimant had the burden of proof on both of those issues and they presented questions of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. 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 the 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 and manifestly unjust. Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986); Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986). In this instance, there was conflicting evidence on the injury and notice issues. The hearing officer was acting within his province as the fact finder in resolving the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence against the claimant and in determining that the claimant did not sustain her burden of proving that she injured her cervical spine repositioning a patient at work on ______________, or that she reported her injury to her employer within 30 days of ______________. Our review of the record does not demonstrate that the challenged determinations are so against the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust; therefore, no sound basis exists for us to reverse them on appeal. Pool; Cain.
The 1989 Act requires the existence of a compensable injury as a prerequisite to a finding of disability. Section 401.011(16). Because we have affirmed the determination that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury and did not timely report her alleged injury, the hearing officer properly concluded that the claimant did not have disability.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
GARY SUDOL
9330 LBJ FREEWAY, SUITE 1200
DALLAS, TEXAS 75243.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Margaret L. Turner – Appeals Judge