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 11, 2004. The hearing officer determined that the appellant (claimant) is not entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the 8th, 9th, 10th, or 11th quarters. The claimant appealed the determinations regarding the 9th, 10th, and 11th quarters on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. The respondent (carrier) responded, urging affirmance. We note that at the outset of the hearing on this matter, the parties agreed that the claimant did not intend to pursue SIBs for the 8th quarter. The hearing officer informed the parties that she would make a finding of nonentitlement for the 8th quarter. There were no objections, and the claimant has not appealed that determination; therefore it has become final. Section 410.169.
DECISION
Affirmed.
We have reviewed the complained-of determinations and find that the hearing officer’s Decision and Order is supported by sufficient evidence to be affirmed. The disputed issues presented questions of fact for the hearing officer. Whether or not the claimant was entitled to SIBs based upon a good faith job search or due to a total inability to work were factual questions for the hearing officer to resolve. The hearing officer is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Section 410.165(a); Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Campos, 666 S.W.2d 286 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ). There was conflicting evidence presented on the disputed issues. 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). Nothing in our review of the record reveals that the hearing officer’s determinations are so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. As such, no sound basis exists for us to reverse those determinations on appeal. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is HIGHMARK CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
701 BRAZOS, SUITE 1050
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.
Judy L. S. Barnes
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Edward Vilano – Appeals Judge