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 August 4, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on _____________, and had disability from February 21, 2003, through the date of the hearing. The appellant (carrier) appeals these determinations. The claimant urges affirmance of the hearing officer’s decision.
DECISION
Affirmed.
Whether the claimant sustained a compensable injury and had disability were factual questions for the hearing offer to resolve. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence (Section 410.165(a)) and 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)). It was the hearing officer’s prerogative to believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness, including that of the claimant. Aetna Insurance Company v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, no writ). Nothing in our review of the record demonstrates that the challenged determinations are so against the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to disturb the hearing officer’s decision on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986)
The carrier argues that there is insufficient evidence connecting the claimant’s knee injuries to the accident that occurred on _____________. Generally, corroboration of an injury is not required and may be found based upon a claimant’s testimony alone. Gee v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 765 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. 1989). Lay testimony is sufficient to establish causation where, based upon common knowledge, a fact finder could understand a causal connection between the employment and the injury, but expert testimony may be required where such common knowledge does not exist. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 941464, decided January 9, 1995. In the present case, the claimant testified that he did not have knee problems prior to the date of injury. Furthermore, there is medical evidence connecting the injury to the knee problems. For these reasons, we perceive no error in the hearing officer’s resolution of the compensability issue.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is ASSOCIATION CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
HAROLD FISHER, PRESIDENT
3420 EXECUTIVE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 200
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78731.
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge