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 July 12, 2004. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by determining that the appellant (claimant) did not sustain a compensable injury on _______________, and did not have disability. The claimant appeals these determinations. The respondent (self-insured) urges affirmance of the hearing officer’s decision.
Affirmed as reformed.
The claimant points out on appeal that the hearing officer's decision and order contains two typographical errors. The first typographical error is contained in the Background Information section of the decision wherein the hearing officer recites the following quote from a written statement in evidence “On 9/13/03 at approximately 9:10 a.m…..” The evidence actually reflects that the date recited in that statement is _______________. The decision is reformed to reflect this correction. The second typographical error is contained in Finding of Fact 1.B wherein the hearing officer states, “On September 19, 2004, the claimant was the employee of (City) County, a political subdivision of the State of Texas.” This finding of fact is reformed to reflect that the correct date of the claimed injury is _______________. We perceive these errors as simply typographical in nature and not rising to the level of reversible error, as asserted by the claimant.
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). 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 the existence of a compensable injury is a prerequisite to a finding of disability (Section 401.011(16)), we similarly perceive no error in the determination that the claimant did not have disability.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed as reformed.
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
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Daniel R. Barry
Thomas A. Knapp