The hearing examiner was also in the best position to judge the weight to be given to the medical evidence. Sufficient ambiguities in the evidence existed to trigger the process of weighing the evidence and assessing the credibility of the witnesses. That task was for the hearing examiner, not for an appellate court, to perform. It is the duty of the trier of fact to weigh and evaluate the testimony of the witnesses, including that given by experts. . . . Substantial evidence supported the hearing examiner's conclusion that the claimant failed to prove that her claim arose out of and in the course of her employment.
Admissibility of evidence is committed to the discretion of the hearing examiner.
A hearing examiner abuses his discretion when his decision shocks the conscience of the court and appears to be so unfair and inequitable that a reasonable person could not abide it. State ex rel. It was barely legible, and the declarant was never located. Since the hearing examiner did not have any way of knowing the declarant's identity or her motive for writing the letter, this hearsay evidence was unreliable. The hearing examiner did not abuse his discretion in excluding it.