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 October 22, 2002, June 11, 2003, and concluded on June 16, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the compensable cervical and lumbar injuries of _______________, including the diagnoses of cervicalgia, C3-4 degenerative changes (spondylosis), C5-6 herniated disc with spondylosis and stenosis, and L4-5 central disc herniation associated with spondylosis, was a producing cause of the respondent’s (claimant) condition and need for treatment from September 2000 to the present. The appellant (carrier) appeals on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. The claimant urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant attached new documentation to her response which would purportedly show that the compensable injuries of _______________, are a producing cause of her condition and need for treatment from September 2000 to the present. Documents submitted for the first time on appeal are generally not considered unless they constitute newly discovered evidence. See generally Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93111, decided March 29, 1993; Black v. Wills, 758 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1988, no writ). Upon our review, the evidence offered is not so material that it would probably produce a different result. The evidence, therefore, does not meet the requirements for newly discovered evidence and will not be considered on appeal.
The hearing officer did not err in making the complained-of determination. 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 decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Edward Vilano
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge