Administrative Decisions - Texas Worker

Administrative Decisions

January 15, 2021

APD 201713

The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the administrative law judge for clerical errors.

December 22, 2020

APD 201642

The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge's decision that the claimant did not have disability while receiving salary continuation from the employer. The Appeals Panel rendered a new decision finding that the claimant had disability because the injured employee “was not performing personal services for the employer in exchange for the salary continuation.”

December 17, 2020

APD 201565

The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the administrative law judge issued inconsistent conclusions of law. Specifically, the administrative law judge found the date of injury to be in 2019, but the administrative law judge determined compensability for a 2018 date of injury.

December 11, 2020

APD 201479

The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the administrative law judge because evidence that was clearly part of the hearing was not made part of the record.

December 11, 2020

APD 201505

The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because, in calculating the average weekly wage, the administrative law judge failed to consider the value of an apartment and utilities that the claimant received from the employer during a portion of the 13-week period.

December 8, 2020

APD 201653

The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the administrative law judge for reconstruction of the record.

November 6, 2020

APD 201337

The Appeals Panel remanded the case back to the administrative law judge because the administrative law judge’s statements that certain medical records did not mention the compensable injury was a misstatement of the evidence.

November 6, 2020

APD 201401

The appeals panel remanded the case back to the administrative law judge to consider whether the claimant had good cause for failing to attend the contested case hearing.

October 28, 2020

APD 201283

The appeals panel remanded the decision because the administrative law judge did not consider all of the conditions which comprise the compensable injury when making her determination of disability.

October 22, 2020

APD 201244-s

The appeals panel issued an S-case remanding the matter back to the administrative law judge. The appeals panel found that when a designated doctor issues simultaneous valid certifications while assessing extent-of-injury, Rule 130.12 applies, even when neither party raised an extent-of-injury dispute at the contested case hearing. Because rule 130.12 applied, the appeals panel determined that neither certification became final. The appeals panel also found that the administrative law judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the carrier’s continuance request for an RME because the carrier waited over eight months after the designated doctor's exam to request the RME.

1 2 3 … 2,386 Next »

Top