Following a contested case hearing (CCH) held on September 11, 2000, pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act), the hearing officer, resolved the disputed issues by determining that the respondent (claimant herein) was entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the fifth and sixth compensable quarters. The appellant (carrier herein) files a request for review arguing that the hearing officer erred in determining the claimant was entitled to SIBs for the fifth and sixth compensable quarters. The carrier specifically argues that the hearing officer erred in finding that the claimant was unable to work during a portion of the qualifying period for the sixth compensable quarter and that the claimant produced sufficient evidence that she sought employment every week during the qualifying period for the fifth compensable quarter. There is no response from the claimant to the carrier’s request for review in the appeal file.
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 of the hearing officer.
The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on __________, with a 15% or greater impairment rating; that the claimant has not commuted any portion of the impairment income benefits; that the qualifying period of the fifth quarter was from January 5, 2000, through April 4, 2000; and that the qualifying period for the sixth quarter was from April 5, 2000, through July 4, 2000. The claimant testified that her injury was a spinal injury due to heavy lifting and that she had undergone spinal surgery. The claimant was released to light-duty work on January 6, 2000. The claimant testified that she sought employment with various employers and worked through two separate temporary-employment agencies during the qualifying period for the fifth compensable quarter. The claimant testified that after being laid off of the second temporary job she sought employment and, in April 2000, went to work for (employer), working there until May 31, 2000, when her treating doctor told her not to work because her condition was worsening.
The hearing officer found that the claimant looked for work during every week of the qualifying period for the fifth quarter and during every week during the qualifying period for the sixth quarter during which she was not working until May 31, 2000, after which time she had no ability to work. The carrier’s appeal is based upon its contentions that the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence that she looked for work during every week of the qualifying period for the fifth quarter and that she should have continued looking for work after May 31, 2000, since the January 6, 2000, release constituted a medical record showing the claimant was able to work.
This argument is essentially based upon the carrier’s contention that the claimant failed to meet the requirements either of Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.102(e) (Rule 130.102(e)) or of Rule 130.102(d)(4) to qualify for SIBs. However, we do not find this argument controlling under the facts of the present case. We note that we will affirm the hearing officer’s decision on any theory supported by the evidence. See Daylin, Inc. v. Juarez, 766 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1989, writ denied). In the present case, the claimant worked during both the qualifying periods. The hearing officer’s discussion in his decision indicates that he believed that these positions were relatively equal to her ability to work. This evidence alone supports the claimant’s entitlement to SIBs for the fifth and sixth compensable quarters pursuant to Rule 130.102(d)(1) whether or not she sought work during each week of the qualifying period. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 001100, decided July 5, 2000; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 000616, decided April 26, 2000.
On this basis, we affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge