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 September 16, 2003. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the second, third, fourth, and fifth quarters. In his appeal, the claimant asserts error in each of those determinations. The appeal file does not contain a response to the claimant’s appeal from the respondent (self-insured).
DECISION
Affirmed.
The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on _______________; that he received an impairment rating of 15% or more; that he did not commute his impairment income benefits; and that the second, third, fourth and fifth quarters of SIBs ran from September 21, 2001, to September 19, 2002. The qualifying periods comprised the period from June 9, 2001, to June 7, 2002. 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 he had a total inability to work during the qualifying periods for the second, third, fourth, and fifth quarters. 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 good faith requirement of Rule 130.102(d)(4) by demonstrating that he had no ability to work in the relevant qualifying periods. The hearing officer was not persuaded that the evidence presented by the claimant was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 130.102(d)(4). Specifically, the hearing officer determined that there was not a narrative that specifically explained how the claimant’s injury caused a total inability to work and that other records showed that the claimant had some ability to work in the qualifying periods. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the hearing officer’s determinations in that regard are 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 determinations, or the determinations that the claimant is not entitled to SIBs for the second, third, fourth, and fifth quarters, on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a self-insured governmental entity) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CITY SECRETARY
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Elaine M. Chaney
CONCUR:
Margaret L. Turner – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge