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 29, 2000. With respect to the single issue before her, the hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) is entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the eighth quarter. In its appeal, the appellant (self-insured) argues that the hearing officer’s determinations that the claimant satisfied the good faith requirement by returning to a job relatively equal to her ability to work, that the claimant’s earnings were less than 80% of her average weekly wage (AWW) as a direct result of her impairment, and that the claimant is entitled to SIBs for the eighth quarter are against the great weight of the evidence. In her response to the self-insured’s appeal, the claimant urges affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on __________; that she was assigned an impairment rating of 23%; that she did not commute her impairment income benefits; that the eighth quarter of SIBs ran from September 18 to December 17, 2000; and that the claimant earned less than 80% of her AWW during the qualifying period for the eighth quarter. The qualifying period was identified as the period from June 6 to September 4, 2000.
During the qualifying period, the claimant worked driving a van for a motel. She worked 10 hours per day, four days per week and was paid $6.50 per hour. The claimant’s treating doctor, Dr. R, has imposed work restrictions of no lifting over 10 pounds and no overhead reaching. The claimant testified that her job driving the van is within her restrictions and that although she develops pain and swelling from performing her job duties, the four-day work weeks permit her to rest on her three days off so that she is able to work full time. On cross-examination, the claimant acknowledged that she did not look for other employment during the qualifying period.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant had satisfied the good faith requirement. Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.102(d)(1) (Rule 130.102(d)(1)) provides that a injured employee has made a good faith effort to obtain employment commensurate with the employee’s ability to work if the employee “has returned to work in a position which is relatively equal to the injured employee’s ability to work.” The self-insured contends that the hearing officer erred in determining that the job the claimant worked during the qualifying period was “relatively equal” because the $6.50 per hour that she was paid was only “minimal wages.” We find no merit in this assertion. We have previously noted that the question of whether the job a claimant works during the qualifying period is a job which is relatively equal to the injured employee’s ability to work is a question of fact for the hearing officer and that the focus of the inquiry is on the hours worked and the ability to work not on the wages paid. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 000608, decided May 10, 2000; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 000616, decided April 26, 2000. In this instance, the hearing officer determined that the claimant had returned to work in a full-time position which was within her restrictions. That determination is supported by sufficient evidence and is not so against the great weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. Thus, it will not be disturbed 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). Contrary to the self-insured’s assertions, where as here the claimant had returned to work in a job relatively equal, she was not required to conduct a job search in accordance with the requirements of Rule 130.102(e) in order to satisfy the good faith requirement.
The self-insured also challenges the hearing officer’s direct result determination. Rule 130.102(c) provides that “an injured employee has earned less than 80% of the employee’s [AWW] as a direct result of the impairment from the compensable injury if the impairment from the compensable injury is a cause of the reduced earnings.” A direct result determination is sufficiently supported if the record establishes that the claimant sustained a serious injury with lasting effects such that she can not reasonably perform the job she was doing at the time of her compensable injury. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 001847, decided September 15, 2000; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 001310, decided July 12, 2000. The evidence establishes that the claimant has permanent 10-pound lifting restrictions and that she cannot perform overhead work. That evidence provides sufficient support for the determination that the claimant had reduced earnings during the eighth quarter qualifying period as a direct result of her impairment from the compensable injury.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge