Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
APD 041538
August 16, 2004

APD 041538

August 16, 2004

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 7, 2004. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on _____________, and that she had disability, as a result of her compensable injury, from January 6 through October 31, 2003. In its appeal, the appellant (self-insured) asserts error in each of those determinations. The appeal file does not contain a response to the self-insured’s appeal from the claimant. In addition, the claimant did not appeal the hearing officer’s determination that her disability ended on October 31, 2003.



The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on _____________, and that she had disability from January 6 through October 31, 2003. Those issues presented questions 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). As the trier of fact, 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). There was conflicting evidence on the disputed issues and the hearing officer was acting within his province as the fact finder in giving more weight to the evidence tending to demonstrate that the claimant sustained a compensable injury and that she had disability for the period found. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the challenged determinations are so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Accordingly, no sound basis exists for us to reverse those determinations on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986). This is so even though another fact finder may well have drawn different inferences from the evidence and reached a different result. Salazar v. Hill, 551 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

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




Elaine M. Chaney
Appeals Judge


Chris Cowan
Appeals Judge

Thomas A. Knapp
Appeals Judge