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 April 2, 2003. With respect to the single issue before her, the hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) had disability, as a result of his _____________, compensable injury, from January 6, 2003, through the date of the hearing. In its appeal, the appellant (self-insured) asserts error in the hearing officer’s disability determination. In his response to the self-insured’s appeal, the claimant urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on _____________. The only issue before the hearing officer was whether the claimant had disability from January 6, 2003, through the date of the hearing as a result of his compensable injury. The hearing officer resolved that issue by determining that the claimant had disability for the period at issue. The hearing officer did not err in making her disability determination. The disability issue presented 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). As the trier of fact, 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). The hearing officer was persuaded that the claimant sustained his burden of proving that his compensable injury was a cause of his disability for the period from January 6, 2003, through the date of the hearing. The factors emphasized by the carrier in challenging the hearing officer’s disability determination on appeal are the same factors it emphasized at the hearing. The significance, if any, of those factors was a matter for the hearing officer in resolving the issue before her. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the challenged determination is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to reverse that determination on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is a certified self-insured 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.
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Margaret L. Turner – Appeals Judge