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 January 2, 2002. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by concluding that the appellant (claimant) is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the seventh quarter. The claimant appealed, disputing the determinations made by the hearing officer. The respondent (self-insured) replies, contending that the determinations of the hearing officer are not contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence and are supported by sufficient evidence.
DECISION
Affirmed.
Section 408.142(a) and Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.102 (Rule 130.102) set out the statutory and regulatory requirements for SIBs. At issue in this case is whether the claimant met the good faith job search requirement of Section 408.142(a)(4) through a total inability to work as set out in Rule 130.102(d)(4).
It is undisputed that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on _____________. The claimant testified that he underwent a 360 lumbar fusion in March of 1998. The claimant asserts that he had no ability to work and, therefore, did not make a job search during the qualifying period. Rule 130.102(d)(4) provides that an injured employee has made a good faith effort to obtain employment commensurate with the employee’s ability to work if the employee has been unable to perform any type of work in any capacity, has provided a narrative report from a doctor which specifically explains how the injury causes a total inability to work, and no other records show that the injured employee is able to return to work.
The hearing officer found that the narrative reports in evidence did not specifically explain how the injury caused a total inability to work and that other records existed which indicated the claimant had some ability to work. 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)). In view of the evidence, and applying our standard of review, we find sufficient evidence to support the hearing officer’s findings.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a certified self-insured) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
C.T. CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 N. ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge