This case returns following our remand in Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 011645, decided August 23, 2001, where we remanded the case for the required carrier information. That information was placed in the record and forwarded to the appellant (claimant). No hearing on remand was held, and the hearing officer reissued his prior decision and order without modification. The hearing officer, determined that the claimant is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the third and fourth quarters. In his appeal, the claimant asserts that the hearing officer’s determinations that he did not make a good faith effort to look for work commensurate with his ability to work and that he is not entitled to SIBs in the quarters at issue are against the great weight of the evidence. In its response to the claimant’s appeal, the respondent (self-insured) urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant is not entitled to SIBs for the third and fourth quarters. Those issues presented questions of fact for the hearing officer to determine. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a); Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). The hearing officer was not persuaded that the claimant made a good faith effort to look for work commensurate with his ability to work, and he was acting within his province as the fact finder in so finding. It was for the hearing officer, as the trier of fact, to resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and to determine what facts had been established. Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co., 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). Sufficient evidence supports the challenged determinations and nothing in our review of the record reveals that the hearing officer’s determinations that the claimant is not entitled to SIBs for the third and fourth quarters are so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. As such, no sound basis exists for us to reverse those determinations on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the self-insured is (SELF-INSURED) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
SA
ADDRESS
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Michael B. McShane – Appeals Judge