Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
APD 041729
September 2, 2004

APD 041729

September 2, 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 15, 2004. With respect to the single issue before him, the hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) had disability, as a result of his ______________, compensable injury, from August 28, 2003, through February 24, 2004. In its appeal, the appellant (carrier) argues that the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant had disability for that period due to the ______________, compensable injury is against the great weight of the evidence. In his response to the carrier’s appeal, the claimant urges affirmance.



The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant had disability, as a result of his ______________, compensable injury, from August 28, 2003, through February 24, 2004. That issue presented a question 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). In this instance, the hearing officer was persuaded that the claimant sustained his burden of proving that he had disability for the period found as a result of the compensable injury. The claimant was only required to demonstrate that the ______________, injury was a cause of his disability and the hearing officer found that the claimant did so. The hearing officer’s determination in that regard is supported by sufficient evidence and nothing in our review of the record reveals that the challenged determination is 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 the disability determination on appeal. 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 ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is




Elaine M. Chaney
Appeals Judge


Veronica L. Ruberto
Appeals Judge

Margaret L. Turner
Appeals Judge