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 November 12, 2002. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the respondent (claimant) had disability as a result of the ____________, compensable injury from May 6 to June 29, 2002. The appellant (carrier) appeals, arguing that there is no evidence to support the disability finding. The claimant responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on ____________. Disability was the sole issue to be resolved at the hearing. Disability is a question of fact to be determined by the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93560, decided August 19, 1993. Section 410.165(a) provides that the contested case 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. It was for the hearing officer, as trier of fact, to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence and to decide what facts the evidence has established. Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co., 508 S.W.2d 701, 702 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). Disability may be found not to exist for a period of time and then be found to reoccur at a later time. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 971813, decided October 23, 1997 (Unpublished). The hearing officer’s determination that the claimant had disability from May 6 to June 29, 2002, is supported by the claimant’s testimony and the evidence from Dr. L, with whom the claimant began treating on May 6, 2002. Nothing in our review of the record demonstrates that the challenged 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. This is so even though another fact finder may have drawn different inferences from the evidence, which would have supported a different result. Salazar v. Hill, 551 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION
350 NORTH ST. PAUL
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Roy L. Warren – Appeals Judge