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 September 4, 2002. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the appellant (claimant) is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the fifth quarter, from April 26 through July 25, 2002. The claimant appeals on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. The respondent (carrier) responded, urging affirmance.
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 administrative rule 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) by complying with Rule 130.102(d)(4). It is undisputed that the claimant sustained a compensable neck and shoulder injury on ____________; that the claimant had cervical surgery on April 8, 2002; and that the fifth quarter was from April 26 through July 25, 2002, with the qualifying period for the fifth quarter being from January 11 through April 11, 2002.
The carrier acknowledged that since the surgery of April 8, 2002, the claimant had no ability to work for the remainder of the qualifying period at issue. The claimant testified that during the qualifying period he did not work, look for work, or participate in a rehabilitation program.
The Appeals Panel has recognized that a claimant may satisfy the good faith requirement under a hybrid theory. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 002428, decided December 1, 2000, cited Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 001877, decided September 19, 2000, noting that a claimant could satisfy the good faith requirement by demonstrating that he or she had no ability to work for part of the qualifying period and by conducting a good faith job search in the other part of the qualifying period. However, in order to prevail, the claimant must produce evidence that established the requirements of Rule 130.102(d)(4) for the period of time that no ability to work was asserted and evidence that meets the criteria of Rule 130.102(e) for that period of time wherein a good faith job search was claimed. The claimant alleged a total inability to work for the entire qualifying period. However, the hearing officer specifically found that the claimant had an ability to work and did not in good faith attempt to obtain employment commensurate with his ability to work. It is evident from the hearing officer’s decision in the instant case that the hearing officer was not persuaded that the claimant met his burden of proof.
After review of the record before us and the complained-of determination, we have concluded that there is sufficient legal and factual support for the hearing officer’s decision. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
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
JT
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Margaret L. Turner
CONCUR:
Susan M. Kelley – Appeals Judge
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge