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 March 23, 1999. The issues at the CCH were extent of injury and disability. The hearing officer found that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable injury of ________, was not a producing cause of the claimant’s depression or anxiety disorder. The hearing officer also concluded that the claimant does not have continuing disability. The claimant appeals, arguing that these determinations were contrary to the evidence, and challenging particular findings of the hearing officer. The respondent (self-insured) replies that the hearing officer’s determinations and decision are supported by the evidence. The self-insured also points out that the claimant has attained statutory maximum medical improvement (MMI) so that he is no longer entitled to temporary income benefits (TIBS) regardless of the hearing officer’s decision on the issue of disability.
DECISION
Finding sufficient evidence to support the decision of the hearing officer and no reversible error in the record, we affirm the decision and order.
The hearing officer summarizes the evidence in his decision and we adopt his rendition of the evidence. We will only briefly touch on the evidence most germane to the appeal. First, it was undisputed that the claimant was injured in the course and scope of his employment on ________, when he was lifting a safe. It was also undisputed that the claimant had surgery on his right shoulder as a result of this injury. There was conflicting medical evidence as to whether the claimant’s injury resulted in depression and anxiety disorder.
The question of whether an injury occurred is one of fact. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93854, decided November 9, 1993; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93449, decided July 21, 1993. This is also true of the question of the extent of an injury. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93613, decided August 24, 1993. 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 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). This is equally true regarding medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286, 290 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness. Taylor v. Lewis, 553 S.W.2d 153, 161 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Aetna Insurance Co. v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, no writ). An appeals level body is not a fact finder and does not normally pass upon the credibility of witnesses or substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of fact, even if the evidence would support a different result. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Soto, 819 S.W.2d 619, 620 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1991, writ denied). When reviewing a hearing officer’s decision for factual sufficiency of the evidence we should reverse such decision only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986).
A finding of injury may be based upon the testimony of the claimant alone. Houston Independent School District v. Harrison, 744 S.W.2d 298,299 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ). However, as an interested party, the claimant’s testimony only raises an issue of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. Escamilla v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 499 S.W.2d 758 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1973, no writ). In the present case, the hearing officer found that the claimant’s injury did not extend to depression or anxiety disorder. Claimant had the burden to prove injury. Reed v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 535 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.). We cannot say that the hearing officer was incorrect as a matter of law in finding that the claimant failed to meet this burden regarding depression and anxiety disorder. This is so even though another fact finder might have drawn other inferences and reached other conclusions. Salazar v. Hill, 551 S.W.2d 518 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
Disability is a question of fact to be determined by the hearing officer. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93560, decided August 19, 1993. We do not find the overwhelming evidence contrary to the hearing officer’s finding of no additional disability. Section 408.101 states that a claimant is entitled to TIBS if he has disability and has not attained MMI. With no additional compensable injury found, and with the claimant at statutory MMI in regard to his shoulder injury, we find no error in the hearing officer’s finding that the claimant is not entitled to additional TIBS.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge
Alan C. Ernst – Appeals Judge