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 October 1, 2003. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the 18th quarter. The claimant appeals this determination on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. No response was filed.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The claimant attached additional documentation to her appeal which would purportedly show that she is entitled to 18th quarter SIBs. Documents submitted for the first time on appeal are generally not considered unless they constitute newly discovered evidence. See generally Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 93111, decided March 29, 1993; Black v. Wills, 758 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1988, no writ). Upon our review, the evidence offered is not so material that it would probably produce a different result, nor is it shown that the documents could not have been obtained prior to the hearing below. The evidence, therefore, does not meet the requirements for newly discovered evidence and will not be considered on appeal.
The hearing officer did not err in determining that the claimant is not entitled to 18th quarter SIBs. Section 408.142 and Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.102 (Rule 130.102) establish the requirements for entitlement to SIBs. At issue was whether the claimant earned less than 80% of her average weekly wage as a direct result of the impairment from the compensable injury and whether she returned to work in a position which is relatively equal to her ability to work. 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 Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, 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 MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
800 BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Gary L. Kilgore – Appeals Judge
Margaret L. Turner – Appeals Judge