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 August 2, 2000. With respect to the single issue before her, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the 11th quarter. In her appeal, the claimant argues that the hearing officer’s determinations that she did not make a good faith job search commensurate with her ability to work and that she is not entitled to SIBs for the 11th quarter are 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 during the qualifying period for the 11th quarter was a direct result of her impairment for the compensable injury.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on __________; that she reached maximum medical improvement on January 31, 1996, with an impairment rating of 31%; that the claimant did not commute her impairment income benefits; that the 11th quarter of SIBs ran from May 2 to August 10, 2000; and that the claimant earned no wages during the qualifying period for the 11th quarter. Although the parties did not stipulate to the dates of the qualifying period, it was identified at the hearing as the period from January 29 to April 28, 2000.
The claimant testified that she injured her neck, low back, and right knee in her injury at work on __________. The claimant’s treating doctor is Dr. P. On March 23, 2000, Dr. P ordered a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) for the claimant. The FCE report states that the claimant “demonstrated the ability to perform work at the sedentary level. However, she has a variety of complaints (dizziness, headaches, pain, depression) that appear to significantly impact her function.” On March 30, 2000, Dr. P completed a work status report, stating that the claimant could only work four hours per day with a restriction of sitting one to four hours per day. That form does not list any additional restrictions. In a Specific and Subsequent Medical Report (TWCC-64) dated April 20, 2000, Dr. P diagnosed claimant’s injuries as a neck sprain, a lumbar sprain, and a “joint disorder NEC, unspecified.” In that report, Dr. P further opined that based upon the FCE results, he did not believe that the claimant would ever be able to “find gainful employment” or “return to work.”
The claimant testified that she looked for work with 27 potential employers during the qualifying period for the 11th quarter of SIBs. She stated that she had one interview with her employer at the time of her compensable injury and was advised that she was “unemployable” because the personnel company could not find any jobs consistent with her restrictions. She testified that she made some of her contacts in person and some over the telephone; that she looked in the newspaper for job leads but did not find any within her restrictions in the qualifying period; and that she followed up on one job lead sent to her by the vocational rehabilitation company provided by the carrier. Finally, the claimant testified that she had previously gone to the Texas Rehabilitation Commission and had been advised that she did not qualify for its services because of her restrictions and because she cannot work 20 hours or more per week.
The carrier introduced a report from its vocational rehabilitation company dated May 23, 2000. That report states that of the 27 employers the claimant asserts she contacted in the qualifying period, 7 could find an application or recalled the claimant’s having come to apply; 8 could not find an application and did not recall the claimant’s having come in; and 12 could not be contacted.
The claimant contends that she made a good faith job search in the qualifying period for the 11th 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, the hearing officer noted that the attachments to the claimant’s Application for [SIBs] (TWCC-52) reflects that the claimant made a job contact in each week of the qualifying period; however, that does not end the inquiry as to whether the claimant made a good faith job search. The hearing officer determined that the claimant did not have a well-structured job search plan and that her “efforts to find work lacked the objective manifestations of ‘good faith’ with respect to timing, forethought and diligence. . . .” 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. A review of the hearing officer’s decision simply demonstrates that she was not persuaded that the claimant’s job search efforts rose to the level of a good faith search to obtain employment as opposed to “going through the motions” to qualify for SIBs. The hearing officer’s determination in that regard 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 11th 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:
Tommy W. Lueders – Appeals Judge
Judy L. Stephens – Appeals Judge