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 May 1, 2001. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) was not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the 14th and 15th compensable quarters. The claimant appeals on sufficiency grounds and seeks reversal of the hearing officer’s decision and order. The respondent (carrier) responds and urges that the hearing officer be affirmed in all respects.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant was not entitled to SIBs for the 14th and 15th compensable quarters. The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury to her low back __________; that she has reached maximum medical improvement and has an impairment rating of 19%, and that she has not commuted any portion of her impairment income benefits. The parties further stipulated the dates for the SIBs quarters and the dates of the qualifying periods for each. The claimant testified that she did not look for employment during the qualifying periods for either the 14th or 15th compensable quarter because she is totally unable to work. She presented medical records from her treating doctor supporting her assertion of her total inability to work.
The hearing officer found that the medical evidence from other doctors presented by the carrier showed that the claimant had some ability to work and therefore constituted “other records” within the meaning of Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.102(d)(4) (Rule 130.102(d)(4)). The hearing officer concluded that because there were “other records” showing that the claimant had an ability to work during the qualifying periods for the 14th and 15th quarters, she was not entitled to SIBs benefits for those compensable quarters.
The parties presented conflicting evidence on the disputed issues. Pursuant to Section 410.165(a), the hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. The hearing officer resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and determines what facts have been established from the conflicting evidence. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ); St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Escalera, 385 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.). This is equally true regarding medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). This tribunal will not disturb the challenged findings of a hearing officer unless they are 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); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951).
For these reasons, we affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge