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 March 11, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a new compensable repetitive trauma injury, with a date of injury of _____________. The appellant (carrier) appeals the determination on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. The claimant did not file a response.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant sustained a new compensable repetitive trauma injury, with a date of injury of _____________. The determination involved a question of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)) and, as the trier of fact, resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence including the medical evidence (Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ)). In view of the evidence presented, we cannot conclude that the hearing officer’s determination is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The carrier asserts that the hearing officer failed to fully discuss and, therefore, failed to fully consider its evidence in reaching his decision. We note that the hearing officer is not required to detail all of the evidence in the decision and order. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93164, decided April 19, 1993. Nothing in our review indicates that the carrier’s evidence was not fully considered by the hearing officer.
The carrier also asserts that the hearing officer demonstrated bias in reaching his decision and requests reversal on this basis. We find no support in the record for the carrier’s contention that the hearing officer was motivated by or in any way demonstrated bias in favor of the claimant. The mere fact that the hearing officer issued a decision adverse to the carrier does not, in our view, demonstrate bias but is the prerogative of the hearing officer as the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Accordingly, we find no basis to reverse the hearing officer’s decision.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Edward Vilano
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Veronica L. Ruberto – Appeals Judge