Pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 8308-1.01 et seq. (Vernon Supp. 1993) (1989 Act), a contested case hearing was held in (city), Texas, on April 21, 1993, (hearing officer) presiding as hearing officer. She determined that the respondent (claimant) established by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained a compensable injury while in the course and scope of her employment. Appellant (carrier) urges that there is no evidence or, alternatively, insufficient evidence to support the determinations of the hearing officer. Claimant asks that the decision be affirmed.
DECISION
Finding the “no evidence” point of error to be lacking in merit and not finding the determinations of the hearing officer to be so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust, we affirm.
The claimant, a licensed vocational nurse (LVN), testified that she began experiencing pain in her back on (date of injury), after being on vacation from her job for a couple of days. She said her job included duties of repetitively pushing a heavy, difficult to push, metal cart containing medication for jail inmates. She stated she never had any back trouble previously and had been on this job for almost two years. Initially she was diagnosed with a back strain but when the pain persisted, a CAT scan revealed a herniation at L4-L5. On or about November 15, 1992, she was able to return to work in a different position which did not involve heavy lifting or pushing. She relates her back injury to her work in repetitively pushing the heavy metal cart and does not indicate that she received or noted any particular action or incident that occurred on any specific occasion leading to her back injury. Medical evidence was in conflict with the claimant’s treating doctor stating that “pushing heavy carts is certainly something that could have caused (claimant’s) present medical problem of an HNP in the lumbar spine.” He goes on to say that “I do not feel that it is possible to have this problem without an accident or occurrence. She does, however relate the injury to pushing of heavy medication carts. Therefore, I would relate the two.” The carrier introduced an opinion of another doctor who stated that “in as much as (claimant) had not worked six days preceding the time of onset of her low back pain (date of injury), I do not feel that there is any causal relationship between her work and her pain.”
We have repeatedly stated that in a “no evidence” point of error we consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom which support the fact finder and reject all evidence and inferences to the contrary and that in assessing sufficiency, we set aside the decision of a hearing officer, as fact finder, only if the evidence in support of the hearing officer is so weak or so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93181, decided April 19, 1993; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92148, decided May 29, 1992; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91002, August 7, 1991. Here, claimant’s testimony and the opinion of her treating doctor relating the injury to the job provided evidence to support the determinations of the hearing officer that claimant sustained an injury on the job through the repetitive pushing of the heavy metal cart. While there was conflicting evidence before the hearing officer, it was for the hearing officer to judge the relevancy and materiality of the evidence and to assign the weight and credibility to be given the evidence. Article 8308-6.34(e); Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92234, decided August 13, 1992; Burelsmith v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 568 S.W.2d 695 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo, 1978, no writ). That we might draw different inference or conclusions from the evidence than those drawn by the hearing officer or that the record contains evidence of, or even gives equal support to, inconsistent inferences, is not a sufficient basis to set aside the findings and conclusions of the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93334, decided June 14, 1993. Here, we cannot say that the hearing officer’s decision is
so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. See In re King’s Estate, 244 S.W.2d 660 (Tex. 1951). Accordingly, the decision is affirmed.
Stark O. Sanders, Jr. – Chief Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge