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 June 8, 2001, with the record closing on July 19, 2001. The hearing officer determined that appellant’s (claimant) average weekly wage (AWW) is $517.72. On appeal, the claimant expressed disagreement with this decision. Respondent (carrier) urged affirmance. This case was remanded for the sole purpose of obtaining the street address for carrier’s registered agent in compliance with House Bill 2600, which amended Section 410.164, effective June 17, 2001. See Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 011903, decided September 21, 2001. After the remand, the hearing officer obtained the required carrier information and signed a decision and order on remand making the same determinations as were made previously. Claimant again appealed, contending that his AWW should have been higher and should have included a bonus he earned. Carrier responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the decision and order on remand.
DECISION
We affirm.
Claimant contends that the hearing officer erred in calculating his AWW and by not including a bonus in the calculation. The hearing officer rejected the wage statement offered for an alleged “same or similar” employee and used the fair, just, and reasonable method discussed in Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 128.3(g) (Rule 128.3(g)), to calculate the claimant’s AWW. The hearing officer determined that the established methods for calculating AWW, as prescribed in Rule 128.3, could not be applied in this case due to the fact that claimant had worked only ten weeks preceding the date of injury and because the wage information provided for the “same or similar employee” was based on a different pay rate than claimant’s. The hearing officer calculated claimant’s AWW by dividing his total wages earned during the ten-week period he worked ($5177.15), by the number of weeks that he worked (ten). We note that the amount of total wages includes a bonus that claimant received in addition to his regular wages. Thus, the hearing officer determined that claimant’s AWW is $517.72.
Rule 128.3(g) states that if an employee has lost time from work, without remuneration due to illness, weather, or other cause beyond the control of the employee, the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission may use any method that it considers fair, just, and reasonable to calculate the AWW. Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the hearing officer’s determination that claimant’s AWW is $517.72 is so against the great weight of the evidence as to compel its reversal on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
Claimant attached documents to his brief, one of which was a Payment of Compensation or Notice of Refused/Disputed Claim (TWCC-21) not admitted at the hearing. Documents submitted for the first time on appeal are generally not considered unless they constitute admissible, newly discovered evidence. Claimant did not explain why he was unable to obtain this document at an earlier time. We conclude that this attachment to claimant’s appeal does not meet the requirements of newly discovered evidence necessary to warrant a remand. Having reviewed the document, we conclude that its admission on remand would not have resulted in a different decision. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93111, decided March 29, 1993; Black v. Wills, 758 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. App.- Dallas 1988, no writ).
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
According to information provided by carrier, the true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS, SUITE 750, COMMODORE 1
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge