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 May 14, 2003. The hearing officer determined that (1) the compensable injury does not extend to and include cauda equina syndrome or urologic and sexual dysfunction; and (2) the appellant’s (claimant) impairment rating (IR) is 11%. The claimant appeals these determinations on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. The respondent (self-insured) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the compensable injury does not extend to and include cauda equina syndrome or urologic and sexual dysfunction. 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 hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant’s IR is 11%. The claimant’s appeal of the hearing officer’s IR determination is premised upon the success of his appeal with regard to the extent of injury. Given our affirmance of the extent-of-injury determination, we likewise affirm the hearing officer’s IR determination.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a self-insured governmental entity) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
MANAGER
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Veronica L. Ruberto – Appeals Judge