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 November 20, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) was not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the sixth quarter. The claimant appeals this determination. The respondent (carrier) urges affirmance of the hearing officer’s decision.
DECISION
Affirmed.
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 his or her ability to work. At issue in this case is whether the claimant satisfied the good faith requirement. Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.102(d)(4) (Rule 130.102(d)(4)) 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 for SIBs entitlement 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 explained in her decision that in a letter dated July 28, 2003, Dr. H rescinded his earlier recommendation that the claimant was permanently disabled based upon a video surveillance of the claimant on May 9, 2003. The hearing officer concluded that there was a record showing that the claimant had an ability to work and, consequently, he was not entitled to SIBs for the sixth quarter. Nothing in our review of the record indicates that the hearing officer’s decision 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 (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).
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge