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 March 3, 2003. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the appellant (claimant) is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the eighth quarter from November 28, 2002, through February 26, 2003. The claimant appealed on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. The respondent (carrier) responded, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
We first address the document attached to the claimant’s appeal. Documents submitted for the first time on appeal are generally not considered unless they constitute newly discovered evidence. See generally 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, nor is it shown that the document could not have been obtained prior to the hearing below. The attached document, therefore, does not meet the requirements for newly discovered evidence and will not be considered on appeal.
Eligibility criteria for SIBs entitlement are set forth in Section 408.142(a) and Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.102 (Rule 130.102). At issue, in this case, is whether the claimant met the good faith job search requirement of Section 408.142(a)(4) by complying with Rules 130.102(d)(1-5) and 130.102(e).
Whether the claimant made a good faith effort to obtain employment commensurate with his ability to work during the qualifying period was a fact question for the hearing officer to determine from the evidence presented. The hearing officer was not persuaded that the claimant was enrolled in and in compliance with a program sponsored by the Texas Rehabilitation Commission, or that the claimant made and documented a good faith job search for every week of the qualifying period for the eighth quarter of SIBs. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a). We conclude that the hearing officer’s decision is supported by sufficient evidence and that it is not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. 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 insurance carrier is AMERICAN MOTORIST INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Veronica L. Ruberto – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge