This appeal after remand arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on December 6, 1999. In his first decision and order, the hearing officer determined that respondent (claimant/beneficiary) is the proper beneficiary for entitlement to death benefits in this case. Appellant (carrier) appealed contending only that the hearing officer erred in: (1) failing to ensure that the Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF) received notice of the CCH, and (2) determining that claimant/beneficiary is a proper beneficiary without first giving the SIF an opportunity to develop evidence to the contrary. Claimant/beneficiary responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order. The Appeals Panel reversed the hearing officer’s decision and remanded so that notice could be given to the SIF. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 992929, decided February 7, 2000. In a decision and order on remand, the hearing officer stated that the SIF was given notice and that the SIF declined to appear. The hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law did not change on remand. Carrier again appeals the determination that claimant/beneficiary is a proper beneficiary. Carrier asserts that no evidence was taken from the adult children of the decedent. Claimant/beneficiary responds that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order on remand.
DECISION
We affirm.
The facts and procedural history were set forth in the hearing officer’s decision and in our prior decision. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the hearing officer abused his discretion in excluding any evidence offered by either party. There is nothing in the record before us to indicate that the hearing officer did not adequately develop the record.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that there was evidence that the decedent and the claimant/beneficiary were married, in that they agreed to be married; that after the agreement, they lived together in Texas as husband and wife; and that they represented to others that they were married. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations are not 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, 176 (Tex. 1986).
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
Judy Stephens – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
Tommy W. Lueders – Appeals Judge