A contested case hearing was originally held in_______, Texas, on April 28, 1998, under the provisions of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act), with ____________presiding as hearing officer. In Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 981200, decided July 23, 1998, the Appeals Panel affirmed determinations that the appellant’s (claimant) compensable injury sustained on ___________, extends to his neck and left upper extremity and does not extend to his low back or left side of his body. The Appeals Panel noted that the hearing officer did not specifically resolve the disputed issue of whether the claimant’s compensable injury extended to left carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). It remanded for the hearing officer to resolve that disputed issue; to advise the designated doctor of the extent of the compensable injury, ask him to consider the compensable injury, and to certify an impairment rating (IR); and to award the claimant an IR. The hearing officer held another hearing on August 20, 1998. Neither the claimant nor the respondent (carrier) offered addition evidence concerning the claimant’s CTS. The hearing officer requested that the designated doctor again examine the claimant and assign an IR. The hearing officer sent the additional report to the parties; gave them the opportunity to comment on the designated doctor’s reports; did not receive comments; closed the record on August 26, 1999; and rendered another decision on August 27, 1999, in which he made the same determinations that he made after the first hearing concerning the extent of the claimant’s injury. He also determined that the claimant’s left CTS is not a part of the compensable injury, that the report of the designated doctor that the claimant’s IR is eight percent is entitled to presumptive weight, that the great weight of the other medical evidence is not contrary to that report, and that the claimant’s IR is eight percent. The claimant again appealed the determinations that the compensable injury does not extend to the low back or left side of the body and also appealed the determinations that his compensable injury does not extend to left CTS and that his IR is eight percent. He requested that the Appeals Panel reverse the determinations that the compensable injury does not include certain injuries and that his IR is eight percent. The respondent (carrier) replied, urged that the evidence is sufficient to support the decision of the hearing officer and requested that it be affirmed.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The evidence is summarized in the two Decisions and Orders issued by the hearing officer and in Appeal No. 981200, supra. Only a brief summary of the evidence will be repeated in this decision. The claimant again appealed the determinations that his compensable injury does not extend to low back or left side of the body. We again affirm those determinations.
The claimant’s left arm was jerked, his left shoulder was injured, and had three surgeries on it. The last surgery was performed on July 15, 1996. The doctor who performed the last surgery diagnosed adhesive capsulitis of the left shoulder on July 30, 1996; performed manipulation of the left shoulder on December 16, 1996; and, in an operative report, wrote:
The patient was brought to the operating room and placed in the supine position and was placed under general anesthesia. A gentle manipulation of the left shoulder was performed. A full range of motion was obtained. The patient tolerated the procedure well and was sent to the recovery room in satisfactory condition.
At the original hearing, the claimant testified that after the manipulation he had pain on the left side from his buttock to the top of his shoulder and in his neck and left arm, that the manipulation caused those problems, and that he received treatment for those problems. He said that when he saw the designated doctor, he told the designated doctor about all of his problems and that the designated doctor looked at the medical records that were sent to him. The claimant did not testify at the hearing on remand and did not offer additional medical evidence. The carrier had admitted into evidence a medical report, but the report does not address CTS.
We first address the determination that the claimant’s compensable injury does not extend to CTS. The burden is on the claimant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the extent of an injury. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 94248, decided April 12, 1994. The hearing officer is the trier of fact and is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence and of the weight and credibility to be given to the evidence. Section 410.165(a). The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of any witness’s testimony because the finder of fact judges the credibility of each and every witness, the weight to assign to each witness’s testimony, and resolves conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony. Taylor v. Lewis, 553 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93426, decided July 5, 1993. This is equally true regarding medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). An appeals level body is not a fact finder, and it 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). The hearing officer’s determination that the claimant’s compensable injury does not include CTS is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951); Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). Since we find the evidence sufficient to support that determination of the hearing officer, we will not substitute our judgment for his. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 94044, decided February 17, 1994.
The claimant’s appeal of the IR is based on the argument that the designated doctor did not include all of his compensable injury in the IR. Since we have affirmed the determinations of the hearing officer concerning extent of the compensable injury, we also affirm the determination that the claimant’s IR is eight percent as assigned by the designated doctor.
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
Tommy W. Lueders – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Joe Sebesta – Appeals Judge
Alan C. Ernst – Appeals Judge