This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on July 1, 2004. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on ______________, and that the claimant has not had disability. The claimant appealed, contending that the evidence shows that she sustained a compensable injury and had disability, and that the hearing officer’s determinations are against the great weight of the evidence. The respondent (carrier) asserts that sufficient evidence supports the hearing officer’s decision.

DECISION

Affirmed.

The claimant had the burden to prove that she sustained a compensable injury as defined by Section 401.011(10) and that she had disability as defined by Section 401.011(16). The evidence reflects that the claimant was involved in an incident at work when a coworker lowered a pallet jack onto her left foot. The hearing officer was not persuaded that the claimant proved that she sustained an injury as defined by Section 401.011(26), that is, damage or harm to the physical structure of her body, in the work-related incident. Conflicting evidence was presented at the CCH. While the claimant’s doctors diagnosed various conditions, x-rays of the left foot showed degenerative osteoarthritis with “no injury seen,” and an MRI showed no fracture and only a calcaneal spur. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). As the finder of fact, the hearing officer resolves the conflicts in the evidence and determines what facts have been established. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury is supported by sufficient evidence and is not 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 (Tex. 1986). Without a compensable injury, the claimant would not have disability as defined by Section 401.011(16).

We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.

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

LEE F. MALO

12222 MERIT DRIVE, SUITE 700

DALLAS, TEXAS 75251.

Robert W. Potts

CONCUR:

Chris Cowan
Appeals Judge

Thomas A. Knapp
Appeals Judge