This appeal arises under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act of 1989 (1989 Act), TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. arts. 1.01 through 11.10 (Vernon Supp 1993). On May 18, 1993, a contested case hearing was held in (city), Texas, with (hearing officer) presiding. At that hearing, evidence on three separate claims by appellant (claimant) was heard. In Docket Number 93-015919, the hearing officer determined that claimant failed to show that he injured his leg or any other part of his body in the course of employment on (date of injury). Claimant asserts that the decision is wrong and that he did injure his leg at work. Respondent (carrier) replies that the hearing officer should be affirmed.
DECISION
We affirm.
At the hearing the issues in this claim were stated as whether claimant was injured on (date of injury), in the course and scope of employment and whether the injury of (date of injury), was only to the left leg or included also the neck and back.
Article 8308-6.42(c) of the 1989 Act states that the Appeals Panel “shall determine each issue on which review was requested.” The claimant asserts that he did injure his leg while returning from emptying trash; he disagrees with the finding of fact that states he was not injured in the course of employment.
The Appeals Panel determines:
That the evidence was sufficient to support the hearing officer’s conclusion of law that claimant did not establish that he was injured in the course of employment.
Claimant had worked for MPI, Inc. (employer) approximately two years when he states that he was injured while working on (date of injury). He started work at approximately 6:00 a.m. He and two other employees had just emptied trash at approximately 6:30 in the morning and were returning to the plant when claimant testified that he felt a blow on the left calf of his leg. He was certain that a rock hit the back of his leg, but he did not see it or see who threw it. He surmised that one of the other two workers threw the rock that bruised his calf. The other two workers were (JVP) and (JJ). Both stated that they were with the claimant emptying trash that morning. JJ stated that he returned to the building ahead of the others. Neither JVP nor JJ saw claimant get hit by anything and both said they did not hit claimant with a rock. JVP said that claimant was in front of him walking back to the building and that claimant grabbed his leg and said a rock hit him, but JVP did not see anything strike claimant. An injury to the leg was reported.
A doctor’s note of October 21, 1992, from Occupational Health Center shows claimant presented with a contusion on the left calf. He was returned to restricted work that day with instructions to return for follow-up on October 27th. A note by (Dr. K) indicates claimant was seen on October 26th, complaining of pain in the lower back and left leg. X-rays of the lower back and left leg were normal. A lumbar strain and leg contusion was diagnosed. Nerve studies were normal, and CT scan showed mild anterior spur formation in the lower spine.
The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. See Article 8308-6.34(e) of the 1989 Act. She could view claimant’s testimony as only raising fact issues to resolve. See Burelsmith v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 568 S.W.2d 695 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1978, no writ). While a claim can be found to be compensable without any witness, when witnesses are placed at the scene by claimant, the hearing officer may consider, when applicable, that their testimony is in conflict with that of the claimant. That conflict may raise questions of credibility. The hearing officer is also responsible for resolving conflicts, in addition to assigning weight and credibility. See Taylor v. Lewis, 553 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). While claimant’s medical records indicate that he did have some injury, the hearing officer could determine that it was not shown to have been sustained while in the course and scope of employment. See Johnson v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., 351 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1961, no writ). The evidence was sufficient to support the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant was not injured in the course of employment on (date of injury).
The decision and order are affirmed.
Joe Sebesta – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge