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 February 14, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the first, second, and third quarters. The claimant appeals and the respondent (carrier) responds, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant is not entitled to first, second, and third quarter SIBs. Section 408.142(a) and Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.102 (Rule 130.102) provide the statutory and regulatory requirements for entitlement to SIBs. The hearing officer determined that the claimant did not make the requisite good faith effort to obtain employment commensurate with her ability to work. Rule 130.102(d)(4) provides that the statutory good faith requirement may be met 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 determined that the claimant has failed to meet the requirements of Rule 130.102(d)(4) for SIBs entitlement. As to the claimant’s assertion that she had no ability to work, the hearing officer found that the claimant had some ability to work, which is supported by the evidence of record, and precludes the claimant from establishing that she is entitled to SIBs because of an inability to work. We note also the lack of any narrative report from any of the claimant’s doctors that would explain how the compensable injury causes a total inability to work. The hearing officer specifically noted that the claimant failed to document weekly job searches, with no search activity documented during the first two weeks and last two weeks of the qualifying period. The above determinations are all supported by sufficient evidence.
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 (Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ)). We are satisfied that the challenged determinations of the hearing officer 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); In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951).
We affirm the hearing officer’s decision and order.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Roy L. Warren
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge