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 9, 2001. The hearing officer determined that appellant (claimant) had some ability to work and that she is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the sixth quarter. Claimant appealed these determinations on sufficiency grounds. Respondent (carrier) responded that the Appeals Panel should affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
DECISION
We affirm.
Claimant contends that she did not know until after the qualifying period ended that Dr. C had indicated that she was able to work. She asserts that she relied on the off-work slips from her treating doctor in assuming she had no ability to work and she did not have timely notice of a change in her work status. However, claimant was required to prove that she had no ability to work in this case by offering a narrative report. See Tex. W. C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.102(d)(4) (Rule 130.102(d)(4)). The qualifying period for the sixth quarter was from January 26 to April 26, 2001. The hearing officer determined that claimant did not offer a narrative that specifically explains how the injury causes a total inability to work and our review of the record reveals no such narrative. Therefore, the hearing officer could find that claimant has not met her burden of proof and determine that claimant, who did not search for work, did not meet the good faith SIBs requirements.
Claimant contends that the carrier did not make a comparison between the “factual situation” of the previous qualifying period with the “factual situation” of the current qualifying period, citing Rule 130.108(a). The hearing officer could find from the evidence that carrier had a “factual or legal basis” to dispute SIBs entitlement in this case. The hearing officer could also consider the medical reports written after the prior filing periods had ended. We note that the hearing officer may consider medical reports created outside the qualifying period in making his determinations. We perceive no error.
We have reviewed the complained-of determinations regarding SIBs and good faith and conclude that the issues involved fact questions for the hearing officer. The hearing officer reviewed the record and decided what facts were established. We conclude that the hearing officer’s determinations are not 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).
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
According to information provided by carrier, the true corporate name of the insurance carrier is LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C. T. CORPORATION SYSTEMS
350 N. ST. PAUL STREET, SUITE 2900
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge