Title: 

APD 041137

Significant Decision

Date: 

June 28, 2004

Issues: 

SIBS-9th & Subsequent Quarters

Table of Contents

APD 041137

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 April 29, 2004. The hearing officer determined that the respondent (claimant) is entitled to supplemental income benefits for the 11th quarter. The appellant (carrier) appeals that determination on sufficiency of the evidence grounds. The claimant responds, 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 criteria for SIBs. At issue in this case is whether the claimant met the direct result requirement of Section 408.142(a)(2) and Rule 130.102(b)(1) and the good faith job search requirement of Section 408.142(a)(4) and Rule 130.102(d)(4). The determinations of the issues of “direct result” and “good faith effort” both present questions of fact for the hearing officer to decide. 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 of the weight and credibility that is to be given to 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, 702 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1974, no writ). An appeals-level body is not a fact finder, and does not normally pass upon the credibility of witnesses or substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of fact, even if the evidence would support a different result. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Soto, 819 S.W.2d 619, 620 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1991, writ denied). 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 overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986). We do not find that to be the case, and, accordingly, affirm both the hearing officer’s direct result determination and his good faith effort determination, as well as his conclusion that the claimant is entitled to 11th quarter SIBs.

We affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.

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.

Michael B. McShane

Appeals Panel

Manager-Judge

CONCUR:

Chris Cowan – Appeals Judge

Veronica L. Ruberto – Appeals Judge