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 12, 2001. She determined that the appellant (claimant) was not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for her seventh quarter of eligibility because she had not made a good faith search for employment commensurate with her ability to work. In addition, she held that the claimant was not entitled to reimbursement for her transportation to and from her treating doctor.
The claimant has appealed these determinations, and the respondent (carrier) responds that the hearing officer’s determinations should be affirmed.
DECISION
We affirm.
The hearing officer stated that there was another record which showed an ability to work in this case, even though the claimant had also supplied a supporting narrative showing an inability to work for the SIBs qualifying period at issue. Whether another record shows an ability to work is a fact determination made by the hearing officer, which we will not disturb absent a great weight and preponderance of the evidence against that determination. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951). We have reviewed the record in this case and do not agree that the determination of the hearing officer on this point is reversible.
The hearing officer did not err in holding that no transportation costs were reimbursable for medical care at the direction of the treating doctor. It appeared from the testimony, and the cross-examination of the carrier, that the claimant was seeking reimbursement for transportation to and from two specialists, who were referred by her treating doctor, and not for travel to and from the treating doctor. There was essentially no testimony or evidence showing the distance from the claimant’s residence to either of the doctors involved. The claimant testified in response to the cross-examination about the referral doctors that she did not know whether similar services were, or were not, available within a 20-mile area. The only point appealed on this is that a referral would be required from the claimant’s doctor to another doctor that may or may not be willing to accept workers’ compensation. With the evidence in this posture, we are unable to conclude that the hearing officer erred in holding that the claimant failed to prove entitlement to travel expenses within the criteria set forth in Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 134.6 (Rule 134.6).
Accordingly, we affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order on both appealed points.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C.T. CORPORATION SYSTEMS
350 N. ST. PAUL ST.
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Robert E. Lang
Appeals Panel
Manager/Judge