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 July 9, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the third quarter, December 31, 2002, through March 31, 2003, and the fourth quarter, April 1 through June 30, 2003. The claimant has appealed on evidentiary sufficiency grounds. The respondent (carrier) responds and requests that the claimant’s appeal be deemed inadequate as a matter of law. Alternatively, the carrier urges affirmance on evidentiary sufficiency grounds.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The carrier asserts that the claimant’s request for review fails to invoke the jurisdiction of the Appeals Panel because it fails to clearly and concisely rebut each issue on which review is sought and does not meet requirements of Section 410.202(c) and Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 143.3(a)(2) (Rule 143.3(a)(2)). No particular form of appeal is required and an appeal, even though terse or inartfully worded, will be considered. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91131, decided February 12, 1992; Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93040, decided March 1, 1993. Generally, an appeal which lacks specificity will be treated as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 92081, decided April 14, 1992. We consider the claimant’s appeal to be a minimally sufficient challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the hearing officer’s resolution of the issue of third and fourth quarter SIBs.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant is not entitled to third or fourth quarter SIBs. Section 408.142 and Rule 130.102 establish the requirements for entitlement to SIBs. At issue was whether the claimant made a good faith job search commensurate with her ability to work and whether her underemployment was a direct result of the impairment from the compensable injury. It was for the hearing officer, as the trier of fact, to resolve the conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence and to determine what facts had been established. Garza v. Commercial Ins. Co., 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). In view of the applicable law and the evidence presented, we cannot conclude that the hearing officer’s determination is 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 (Tex. 1986).
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS, SUITE 750, COMMODORE 1
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Gary L. Kilgore
CONCUR:
Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge
Robert W. Potts – Appeals Judge