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 May 29, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the 16th quarter. In her appeal, the claimant argues that the determinations that she had some ability to work in the qualifying period for the 16th quarter and that she is not entitled to SIBs for the 16th quarter are against the great weight of the evidence. In its response, the respondent (carrier) urges affirmance. The carrier did not appeal the hearing officer’s determination that it is not relieved of liability for 16th quarter SIBs because of the claimant’s failure to timely file her application for those benefits and that determination is now final. Section 410.169.
DECISION
Affirmed.
Section 408.142(a) and Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §130.102 (Rule 130.102) set out the statutory and administrative rule requirements for SIBs. At issue in this case is whether the claimant met the good faith job search requirement of Section 408.142(a)(4) by showing that she had a total inability to work during the relevant qualifying period. Rule 130.102(d)(4) provides that an injured employee has made a good faith effort to obtain employment commensurate with the employee’s ability to work if the employee has been unable to perform any type of work in any capacity, has provided a narrative 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.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 130.102(d)(4). Specifically, the hearing officer determined that the report from Dr. H was a record showing that the claimant had some ability to work. Although Dr. H’s report is somewhat internally inconsistent on the issue of the claimant’s ability to work, the hearing officer’s determination that it shows that the claimant had a limited ability to work is a reasonable interpretation of the report and nothing in our review of the record reveals that the hearing officer’s determination in that regard is so against 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 disturb the hearing officer’s good faith determination, or the determination that the claimant is not entitled to SIBs for the 16th quarter, on appeal. Cain v. Bain, supra.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATIONS SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Veronica L. Ruberto – Appeals Judge