APD 230780
The Appeals Panel reformed the decision because the administrative law judge failed to make a conclusion of law on the extent-of-injury issue.
APD 230769
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the administrative law judge failed to make a finding of fact on the extent-of-injury issue.
APD 230665
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision that the claimant’s injury did not arise out of voluntary participation. The Appeals Panel noted that the claimant’s participation in an agility test, the injury event, was not mandatory but for consideration for transfer or promotion to another position.
APD 230710
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision regarding maximum medical improvement and impairment rating because the adopted certification failed to rate the compensable injury.
APD 230630
The Appeals Panel reformed the decision because the administrative law judge failed to indicate an issue that was modified by the parties.
APD 230673
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the administrative law judge failed to make findings of fact on two issues.
APD 230723
The Appeals Panel struck a portion of the decision because the administrative law judge exceeded the scope of the disability issue.
APD 230641
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision regarding impairment rating because the range-of-motion measurements were unclear in the adopted certification.
APD 230503
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision that the insurance carrier waived its right to contest compensability. The Appeals Panel noted that, although the claimant filed two different dates for the same injury, the carrier’s PLN-1 for the second date of injury contained sufficient claim-specific information to inform the claimant of the carrier’s denial of the first date of injury.
APD 230546
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision finding that the Division had abused its discretion in appointing a designated doctor. The Appeals Panel noted that the insurance carrier presented no evidence or authority to show the Division did not follow Texas Labor Code Section 408.0041 and Division rules.