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 14, 2003. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant (claimant) is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the second, third, and fourth quarters. The claimant appealed 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. The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on _____________; that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement on September 18, 2001, with an impairment rating of 17%; that the relevant qualifying periods started on August 29, 2002, and ended on May 28, 2003; and that during the relevant qualifying periods, the claimant earned no wages and did not seek employment. The claimant contended that he had no ability to work during the relevant qualifying periods.
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. In Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 960880, decided June 18, 1996, the Appeals Panel stated that “medical evidence from the filing periods is clearly relevant but other medical evidence from outside the periods, especially that which is relatively close to the filing periods, may be relevant to the condition of the claimant during those periods.” In Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 001055, decided June 28, 2000, the Appeals Panel noted that medical evidence from outside the qualifying period may be considered insofar as the hearing officer finds it probative of conditions in the qualifying period.
The hearing officer found that the claimant failed to provide a narrative report from a doctor which specifically explained how his compensable injury caused a total inability to work, and that “other records” existed which showed that the claimant had some ability to work. The hearing officer commented that although the “other records” were generated several months prior to the commencement of the relevant qualifying periods, the claimant’s medical records do not indicate that his condition has significantly changed since the time the “other records” were generated. With regard to whether other records showed an ability to work, the Appeals Panel has noted that whether another record shows an ability to work is a question of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 000625, decided May 11, 2000.
Whether or not the claimant provided a sufficient narrative report and “other records” showed that he had some ability to work are largely factual determinations for the hearing officer to resolve. Section 410.165(a) provides that the hearing officer, as finder of fact, is the sole judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence as well as the weight and credibility that is to be given the evidence. It was for the hearing officer, as trier of fact, to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence. Garza v. Commercial Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 508 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). This is equally true regarding medical evidence. Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). When reviewing a hearing officer’s decision for factual sufficiency of the evidence, we should reverse such decision only if it is so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). Applying this standard, we find no grounds to reverse the challenged findings of the hearing officer.
The decision and order of the hearing officer are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CT CORPORATION SYSTEMS
350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET, SUITE 2900
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201.
Margaret L. Turner – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge