This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A consolidated contested case hearing was held on January 7, 2003. In (Docket No. 1), the hearing officer determined that respondent 2’s (claimant) (date of injury for Docket No. 1), compensable injury does include an injury to the lumbar spine after (date of injury for Docket No. 2). In (Docket No. 2), the hearing officer determined that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on (date of injury for Docket No. 2), and that he, therefore, did not have disability. The appellant (carrier 1) appealed the hearing officer’s extent-of-injury determination in Docket No. 1 on sufficiency of the evidence grounds, asserting that the hearing officer erred in determining that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on (date of injury for Docket No. 2), in Docket No. 2. Respondent 1 (carrier 2) responded, urging affirmance. The file does not contain a response from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
We have reviewed the complained-of determinations and find that the hearing officer’s Decision and Order is supported by sufficient evidence to be affirmed. The disputed issues presented questions of fact for the hearing officer. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a); Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). There was conflicting evidence presented on the disputed issues. It was for the hearing officer, as the trier of fact, to resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and to determine what facts had been established. Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co., 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the hearing officer’s determinations are so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. As such, no sound basis exists for us to reverse those determinations on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of insurance carrier 1 is CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
The true corporate name of insurance carrier 2 is TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
MR. RUSSELL P. OLIVER, PRESIDENT
221 WEST 6TH STREET
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Daniel R. Barry
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge