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 April 26, 2000. With respect to the single issue before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the 10th quarter, from January 12 to April 12, 2000. In his appeal, the claimant essentially argues that the hearing officer’s determination that he did not make a good faith effort to look for work commensurate with his ability to work in the qualifying period is against the great weight of the evidence. In its response to the claimant’s appeal, the respondent (carrier) urges affirmance. The carrier did not appeal the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant’s unemployment in the qualifying period was a direct result of his impairment.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on __________; that he reached maximum medical improvement on February 12, 1996, with an impairment rating of 29%; that the claimant did not commute his impairment income benefits; that the 10th quarter of SIBs ran from January 12 to April 12, 2000; that the qualifying period for the 10th quarter ran from September 30 to December 29, 1999; and that the claimant earned no wages in the qualifying period. The claimant testified that he injured his low back and left shoulder when he fell 30 feet from a ladder and that as a result of his compensable injury he is restricted from sitting and standing for “long periods,” that he cannot lift more than 20 pounds, and that he cannot work on a ladder.
On January 5, 1998, Dr. H, the claimant’s treating doctor, released him to return to “light level” work. On May 12, 1999, the claimant underwent a functional capacity evaluation (FCE). The FCE report concludes that the claimant “is working safely at the lower light [physical demand level] category.” On November 5, 1999, and December 22, 1999, respectively, the claimant underwent lumbar epidural steroid injections to treat his diagnosed “severe low back pain, lumbar discogenic syndrome.” In a Specific and Subsequent Medical Report (TWCC-64) dated February 11, 2000, Dr. H stated that the claimant “is still experiencing pain about the lower back, particularly has difficulty w/ activities such as walking, bending or lifting.”
The claimant testified that he looked for work in the qualifying period. He acknowledged that the first employment contact listed on his Application for Supplemental Income Benefits (TWCC-52) is dated October 14, 1999. Nonetheless, he testified that he looked for work each week of the qualifying period. He explained that he was not able to list the contacts in the period from September 30, 1999, to October 13, 1999, because he was not sure how to keep track of the job contacts he made. The claimant explained that he randomly chose the employers he contacted in the qualifying period and that he also looked in the newspaper for openings. However, he stated that he had never located a job within his restrictions in the newspaper. On cross-examination, the claimant testified that none of the employers he contacted in the qualifying period were hiring; that he did not complete any applications during the qualifying period; and that many of the jobs he inquired about were not within his restrictions.
The claimant contends that he made a good faith job search in the qualifying period for the 10th quarter. Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §130.102(e) (Rule 130.102(e)) provides in relevant part that “an injured employee who has not returned to work and is able to return to work in any capacity shall look for employment commensurate with his or her ability to work every week of the qualifying period and document his or her job search efforts.” In this case, as noted above, the claimant’s TWCC-52 does not reflect that the claimant made any job contacts in the period from September 30 to October 13, 1999. The claimant testified as to his job search efforts in that period; however, the hearing officer was not bound to accept that testimony. In his discussion, the hearing officer specifically noted that the claimant was required to look for work in each week of the qualifying period and to document those efforts and that the claimant “failed to meet this standard.” In addition, the hearing officer noted that the “type of jobs sought are problematic” because of the claimant’s restrictions and that the claimant did not complete any applications during the qualifying period. Each of those factors was properly considered by the hearing officer as they are contained in the non-exhaustive list of factors that can be considered by the hearing officer under Rule 130.102(e)(1) to (10) in evaluating the claimant’s job search efforts. The hearing officer’s determination that the claimant did not make a good faith job search in the qualifying period is not so contrary to the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Therefore, no sound basis exists for us to reverse that determination, or the determination that the claimant is not entitled to SIBs for the 10th quarter, on appeal. Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986); Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Alan C. Ernst – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge