APD 240139
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to make a mathematical correction to the impairment rating.
APD 240094
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding the certification of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating because it was unclear what conditions the certifying doctor considered in the report and whether the entire compensable injury was rated.
APD 240099
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision regarding jurisdiction because the Administrative Law Judge failed to make findings of fact, conclusions of law, or a decision regarding the issue.
APD 240113
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding the claimant’s relief of agreement based on a misapplication of the AMA Guides. The Appeals Panel noted that the calculation of the impairment rating required rounding “to the nearest 10°,” which requires medical judgment. The Appeals Panel seems to indicate that the certifying doctor has the discretion to round up or down no matter how close or far the measurement is to the 10° increment (e.g. 12° can be rounded to either 10° or 20°).
APD 231908
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision because the insurance carrier on the carrier information sheet was different than the insurance carrier stipulated to by the parties.
APD 231788
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision because the adopted certification of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating failed to rate the compensable injury.
APD 231890
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision because the adopted certification of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating failed to rate the compensable injury.
APD 231871
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding supplemental income benefits because the claimant failed to make the required number of work searches for each week during the qualifying period.
APD 231830
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding impairment rating because the certifying doctor gave a rating that included “routine use of a cane” but the report stated differently.
APD 231843
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision because the insurance company in the order was different than the one stipulated to by the parties.