Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
APD 041930
September 14, 2004

APD 041930

September 14, 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 (CCH) was held on July 13, 2004. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury on ______________, and that the claimant had disability from January 7, 2004, through the date of the CCH. The appellant (carrier) appealed, arguing that the injury and disability determinations are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence so as to be clearly erroneous and manifestly unjust. The claimant responded, urging affirmance.



The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on ______________, and that he had disability from January 7, 2004, through the date of the CCH. 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). The hearing officer was persuaded that the claimant sustained his burden of proving that he sustained a compensable injury as a result of his work activities on ______________, and that he had disability for the period found. Our review of the record reveals that the hearing officer’s injury and disability determinations are supported by sufficient evidence and are not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust. Thus, no sound basis exists for us to disturb those determinations on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). This is so even though another fact finder might have drawn other inferences and reached other conclusions. Salazar, et al. v. Hill, 551 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.

The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is



AUSTIN, TEXAS 78729-1110.

Margaret L. Turner


Chris Cowan
Appeals Judge

Gary L. Kilgore
Appeals Judge