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 October 31, 2000. The hearing officer determined that appellant (claimant) is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the 5th quarter. Claimant appealed this determination on sufficiency grounds. Respondent (carrier) responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order. The direct result determination in claimant’s favor was not appealed.
DECISION
We affirm.
Claimant contends the hearing officer erred in determining that he is not entitled to SIBs for the 5th quarter. Claimant asserts that he made a weekly job search and documented 60 job searches. Claimant complains that the hearing officer relied on a job search verification report that is not credible. The applicable law and our standard of review are set forth in Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 000810, decided June 1, 2000; see also Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.102(d)(5) (Rule 130.102(d)(5)).
The hearing officer summarized the facts in his decision. It is undisputed that claimant had some ability to work and that he acted to document a weekly job search. Although claimant testified regarding his job search, the hearing officer stated that some of claimant’s testimony regarding his job search did not appear credible. The hearing officer explained the reasons why he found claimant did not meet his burden regarding good faith. He indicated that he did not find claimant credible because, of the listed employers, some could not be found at all and one listed employer had been operating under a different name for over one year. The hearing officer determined that claimant did not make a weekly job search and that he did not meet his burden to prove the good faith SIBs criterion. We have reviewed the evidence and 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 L. Stephens
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge