This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing was held on February 11, 2004. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the appellant (claimant) is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the second quarter. The claimant appeals this determination and attaches new evidence to her request for review, the majority of which was not offered into evidence at the hearing. The respondent (carrier) urges affirmance of the hearing officer’s decision and asserts that the new evidence submitted should not be considered.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant attached new evidence to her appeal, the majority of which was not offered into evidence at the hearing. Documents submitted for the first time on appeal are generally not considered unless they constitute newly discovered evidence. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93111, decided March 29, 1993; Black v. Wills, 758 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1988, no writ). Upon our review, the evidence offered is not so material that it would probably produce a different result. The evidence, therefore, does not meet the requirements for newly discovered evidence and will not be considered on appeal.
Section 408.142 provides that an employee continues to be entitled to SIBs after the first compensable quarter if the employee: (1) has not returned to work or has earned less than 80% of the employee’s average weekly wage as a direct result of the impairment; and (2) has in good faith sought employment commensurate with her ability to work. At issue in this case is whether the claimant met the good faith requirement of Section 408.142(a)(4) by complying with Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.102(d)(4) (Rule 130.102(d)(4)), which states that the good faith criterion will be met if the employee:
has been unable to perform any type of work in any capacity, has provided a narrative report from a doctor which specifically explains how the injury causes a total inability to work, and no other records show that the injured employee is able to return to work[.]
Whether the claimant satisfied the good faith requirement was a factual question for the hearing officer to resolve. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the relevance, materiality, weight, and credibility of the evidence presented at the hearing. Section 410.165(a). The hearing officer noted that the claimant failed to provide the required narrative and that she had an ability to work during the qualifying period in question. Nothing in our review of the record indicates that the hearing officer’s decision that the claimant is not entitled to SIBs for the second quarter is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C. J. FIELDS
5910 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY
DALLAS, TEXAS 75206.
Chris Cowan
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge