This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on December 4, 2001. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the fifth and sixth compensable quarters. The claimant urges on appeal that this determination is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The respondent (carrier) urges affirmance.
In deciding whether the hearing officer's decision is sufficiently supported by the evidence, we will only consider the evidence admitted at the CCH. We will not generally consider evidence not submitted into the record, and raised for the first time on appeal. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92255, decided July 27, 1992. To determine whether evidence offered for the first time on appeal requires that a case be remanded for further consideration, we consider whether it came to the appellant's knowledge after the hearing, whether it is cumulative, whether it was through lack of diligence that it was not offered at the hearing, and whether it is so material that it would probably produce a different result. 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 do not find that to be the case with the documents attached to the claimant’s request for review. Consequently, the documents will not be considered on appeal.
At issue in this case is whether the hearing officer erred in determining that the claimant is not entitled to SIBs for the fifth and sixth compensable quarters because she did not make a good faith effort to obtain employment commensurate with her ability to work during the corresponding qualifying periods. The matters complained of by the claimant concern credibility and fact issues, which were for the hearing officer to resolve. Section 410.165(a) provides that the contested case hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence as well as of the weight and credibility that is to be given the evidence. We have reviewed the complained-of determination and conclude that it is 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).
The decision and order of the hearing are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the carrier is ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Susan M. Kelley
Gary L. Kilgore