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 15, 2003. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on _______________, and that she had disability beginning on May 6 and continuing through July 8, 2003, and from August 28, 2003, through the date of the hearing. The appellant (self-insured) appeals, contending that the hearing officer’s decision is not supported by the evidence and is against the great weight of the evidence. The appeal file does not contain a response from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on _______________, and had disability for the periods found. The claimant had the burden of proof on the injury and disability issues and they presented questions of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). The hearing officer is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence and of its weight and credibility. Section 410.165(a). The hearing officer resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and decides what facts the evidence has established. Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). In this instance, the hearing officer was persuaded by the claimant’s testimony and medical evidence tending to demonstrate that she injured her back at work as claimed and that the injury resulted in disability. The hearing officer was acting within his province as the fact finder in so finding. Nothing in our review of the record demonstrates that the hearing officer’s injury and disability determinations are so against the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust; therefore, no sound basis exists for us to reverse those determinations on appeal. Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986); Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
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
MAYOR
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Margaret L. Turner – Appeals Judge