Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
APD 041625
August 11, 2004

APD 041625

August 11, 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 9, 2004. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by determining that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on _______________; that the claimed injury does not include the L1-2 and L3 annular tear, L3-4 and L4-5 disc herniation of the lumbar spine, and T11-12 annular tear of the thoracic spine; and that the claimant did not have disability. The claimant appeals these determinations. The respondent (carrier) urges affirmance of the hearing officer's decision.



Whether the claimant sustained a compensable injury was a factual question 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 for the hearing officer, as trier of fact, to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701, 702 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). This is equally true regarding medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286, 290 (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 indicates that the hearing officer’s compensability determination 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). As we have affirmed the determination that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury on _______________, and the extent-of-injury and disability determinations are predicated on a finding of compensability, we perceive no error in the resolution of the extent-of injury and disability issues.

The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.

The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is




Chris Cowan
Appeals Judge


Elaine M. Chaney
Appeals Judge

Margaret L. Turner
Appeals Judge