APD 230104
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the administrative law judge because the adopted certification had an internal inconsistency. Specially, the certifying doctor stated that he was using the largest impairment assessed for the right lower extremity but failed to do so.
APD 230066
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision regarding extent-of-injury because the administrative law judge misstated the claimant’s testimony in this case regarding the manner in which the compensable injury was alleged to have occurred.
APD 230067
The Appeal’s Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision entitling the insurance carrier to reduce benefits by 50% based on contribution from an earlier injury. The Appeals Panel noted that the insurance carrier has the burden to prove entitlement to and the amount of contribution, and to provide an adequate cumulative impact analysis, which it failed to do.
APD 230029
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the administrative law judge to make a mathematical correction to the certification of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating.
APD 230023
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision regarding maximum medical improvement because the date in the narrative report was different than the date on the DWC-69.
APD 222017
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the administrative law judge on finality. Specifically, the Appeals Panel found that there was compelling medical evidence of a significant error by the certifying doctor in calculating the impairment rating because the range of motion measurements resulted in a higher impairment rating.
APD 221943
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge because the adopted certification did not rate the compensable injury in the case.
APD 221983
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge regarding maximum medical improvement. The Appeals Panel noted that the administrative law judge rejected a certification of maximum medical improvement because it did not establish the claimant’s compensable injury actually improved after an earlier date of MMI. The Appeals Panel reaffirmed that the test is not whether the injured employee actually improved but whether, based upon reasonable medical probability, material recovery or lasting improvement could reasonably be anticipated.
APD 221998
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge regarding extent of injury because the administrative law judge’s decision was based on a misstatement of the medical evidence in the record.
APD 222001
The Appeals Panel affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision; however, it noted that the judge’s decision mistakenly discussed a previous certification even though the judge ultimately decided the impairment rating based on a later response to a request for a letter of clarification.