Title: 

APD 022750

Significant Decision

Date: 

December 16, 2002

Issues: 

Income Benefit Accrual Date

Table of Contents

APD 022750

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 10, 2002, but reconvened on October 3, 2002. The hearing officer determined that the respondent’s (claimant) income benefits began to accrue on April 16, 2001. The appellant (carrier) appeals, contending that the hearing officer’s determination is against the great weight of the evidence and that the claimant’s income benefits began to accrue on December 10, 1999. The claimant responds urging affirmance.

DECISION

We affirm the hearing officer’s decision.

Essentially, the carrier quarrels with the manner in which the hearing officer gave weight and credibility to the evidence. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the relevance, materiality, weight, and credibility of the evidence presented at the hearing. Section 410.165(a). The decision should not be set aside because different inferences and conclusions may be drawn upon review, even when the record contains evidence that would lend itself to different inferences. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). An appeals-level body is not a fact finder and does not normally pass upon the credibility of witnesses or substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of fact, even if the evidence would support a different result. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Soto, 819 S.W.2d 619, 620 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1991, writ denied); American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Volentine, 867 S.W.2d 170 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1993, no writ).

The record in this case presented conflicting evidence for the hearing officer to resolve. In considering all the evidence in the record, we cannot agree that the findings of the hearing officer are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly wrong and unjust. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951). We therefore affirm the decision and order.

The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TRANSCONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is

CT CORPORATION

350 NORTH ST. PAUL

DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.

Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge

CONCUR:

Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge

Margaret L. Turner – Appeals Judge