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 June 25, 2003. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the appellant (claimant) did not have disability. The claimant appealed, arguing that the disability determination is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. The claimant maintains that the hearing officer abused his discretion because he failed to review and understand the medical evidence and only examined the medical evidence in reaching his determination. The respondent (carrier) responded, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
It is undisputed that the claimant sustained an injury in the course and scope of her employment when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident (MVA) on ____________. The claimant had the burden to prove that she had disability as defined by Section 401.011(16). Conflicting evidence was presented on the disputed issue. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the finder of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts in the evidence and determines what facts have been established. The evidence reflected and the hearing officer found that the claimant voluntarily resigned her position with the employer on March 20, 2001, and began working for another employer in May of 2001, performing similar job duties. The hearing officer was not persuaded that the claimant lost the capacity to earn wages equivalent to her preinjury wages because of the compensable injury incurred in the MVA of ____________. Although there is conflicting evidence in this case, we conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations on the disputed issues are supported by sufficient evidence and that they are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986). Although another hearing officer may well have drawn different inferences from the evidence that would have supported a different result, that fact does not permit us to disturb the hearing officer’s decision. Salazar v. Hill, 551 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
The 1989 Act does not require that the Decision and Order of the hearing officer include a summary of the evidence and omitting some of the evidence from a statement of the evidence did not result in error. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 000138, decided March 8, 2000, citing Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 94121, decided March 11, 1994. We find no merit in the claimant’s contention that the hearing officer failed to review and understand the medical evidence and only considered the medical evidence in making the disability determination.
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Margaret L. Turner – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge