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 8, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on _____________, and did not have disability. The claimant appeals these determinations and attaches new evidence to his request for review, which was not offered into evidence at the hearing. The respondent (carrier) urges affirmance of the hearing officer’s decision.
DECISION
Affirmed.
In determining whether the hearing officer’s decision is sufficiently supported by the evidence, we will generally not consider evidence that is offered for the first time on appeal. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92255, decided July 27, 1992. To determine whether evidence offered for the first time on appeal requires that the case be remanded for further consideration, we consider whether it came to the appellant’s knowledge after the hearing, whether it is cumulative, whether it was through lack of diligence that it was not offered at the hearing, and whether it is so material that it would probably produce a different result. 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). We do not find that to be the case with the documents attached to the claimant’s appeal, which were not admitted into evidence at the hearing. Consequently, we decline to consider this evidence on appeal.
The disputed issues in this case involved factual questions for the hearing officer to resolve. Section 410.165(a) provides that the hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence as well as of the weight and credibility that is to be given to the evidence. 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). The hearing officer was not persuaded by the evidence that the claimant met his burden of proving that he sustained a compensable injury and had disability. Nothing in our review of the record indicates that the hearing officer’s decision is 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, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
HOWARD ORLA DUGGER
1702 NORTH COLLINS BOULEVARD, SUITE 200
RICHARDSON, TEXAS 75080-0860.
Chris Cowan
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge