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 26, 2004. The hearing officer decided that the respondent (claimant herein) was entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the eighth quarter, but not for the seventh quarter. The appellant (carrier herein) files a request for review in which it argues that the hearing officer erred in concluding that the claimant was entitled to SIBs for the eighth quarter. There is no response from the claimant to the carrier’s request for review in the appeal file.
DECISION
Finding sufficient evidence to support the decision of the hearing officer and no reversible error in the record, we affirm the decision and order of the hearing officer.
Eligibility criteria for SIBs entitlement are set forth in Section 408.142(a) and Tex. W.C. Comm’n, 28 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 130.102 (Rule 130.102). The parties stipulated that the qualifying period for the eighth quarter was from February 20 through May 20, 2004. The claimant asserts entitlement based on the good faith effort provisions of Rule 130.102(d)(2).
It is undisputed that during the qualifying period the claimant was enrolled in a full-time vocational program sponsored by the Texas Rehabilitation Commission (TRC). At issue was the satisfactory participation provision in Rule 130.102(d)(2). The hearing officer found that the claimant satisfactorily participated in the rehabilitation program sponsored by the TRC. The carrier argued that this determination was contrary to the evidence.
The question of whether the claimant satisfactorily participated in the full-time TRC program presents a question of fact for the hearing officer to resolve. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 032949, decided December 15, 2003. 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). The trier of fact may believe all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness. Taylor v. Lewis, 553 S.W.2d 153, 161 (Tex. Civ. App.-Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Aetna Insurance Co. v. English, 204 S.W.2d 850 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1947, 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); Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). While there was conflicting evidence concerning whether the claimant had satisfactorily participated, applying the above standard, we find no basis to reverse the decision of the hearing officer.
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 – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Judy L. S. Barnes – Appeals Judge
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge