This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). Following a contested case hearing held on October 24, 2001, the hearing officer, determined that because the appellant (claimant) had some ability to work during the qualifying periods for the first through fourth quarters and failed to look for employment, he is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for those quarters. The claimant has appealed these adverse determinations on evidentiary grounds. The respondent (self-insured) urges in response that the evidence is sufficient to support the challenged determinations.
DECISION
Affirmed.
We note at the outset that the claimant has attached to his request for review certain documents, including x-rays, which were excluded from evidence at the hearing. The Appeals Panel does not generally consider evidence offered for the first time on appeal and we find no basis for doing so in this case. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 950331, decided April 18, 1995.
The claimant testified that he sustained injuries, including a crushed pelvis, on __________, when the riding lawn mower he was operating for the self-insured fell on him; that six pins were inserted into his pelvis; that he received an impairment rating of 30% for his injuries; that he takes medications for pain, depression, muscle relaxation, and sleep, which affect his concentration, and sees Dr. L every two weeks for checkups; that he has headaches and pain, and sometimes uses a cane; and that his condition has not changed during the period of the four qualifying periods at issue, which commenced on April 30, 2000. The claimant further testified that he did not seek any employment during the qualifying periods for the first four quarters of SIBs and contended that he had no ability to work. He conceded that he drives his car sometimes, including taking his grandchildren to school and his wife to work, and that he sometimes walks without the cane he brought to the hearing. The claimant denied having failed to attend and refusing to participate in a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) by Dr. M.
The hearing officer determined that the June 7, 2001, report of Dr. L stating that the claimant is “totally disabled,” upon which the claimant relied to satisfy the requirement of Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.102(d)(4) (Rule 130.102(d)(4)) for a narrative report which specifically explains how the injury causes a total inability to work, was not sufficiently descriptive to constitute a narrative report. The hearing officer also determined, pursuant to Rule 130.102(d)(4), that certain reports of Dr. M, and of Dr. E, who did conduct an FCE of the claimant, constitute “other records [that] show” that the claimant was able to return to sedentary work during the qualifying periods. Based on these determinations, the hearing found that the claimant failed to make a good faith effort to obtain employment commensurate with his ability to work during the qualifying periods for the first four quarters and, therefore, that he is not entitled to SIBs for those quarters.
The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a) and, as the trier of fact, resolves the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence including the medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). Having reviewed the evidence, we are satisfied that the challenged findings of the hearing officer are not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951); Pool v. Ford Motor Company, 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986).
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (SELF-INSURED) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY, ZIP
or
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY, ZIP
Philip F. O’Neill – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge