APD 220644
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision regarding impairment rating. The Appeals Panel noted that the impairment rating shall be based on the condition as of the maximum medical improvement date and is not to be based on subsequent changes, including surgery.
APD 220645
The Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. The Appeals Panel found that the Administrative Law Judge’s misstatement in the discussion about the certifying doctor’s identification of a degloving injury was a typographical error that did not affect the outcome of the case.
APD 220498
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to make a mathematical correction to the certification of maximum medical improvement / impairment rating.
APD 220552
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision because the evidence indicated that the 10-day no-show letter was not mailed to the claimant’s correct address of record.
APD 220528
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to make a mathematical correction to the certification of maximum medical improvement / impairment rating.
APD 220521
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision because it did not contain a finding of fact whether the compensable injury extended to a disputed condition.
APD 220563
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to reconstruct the record. The Appeals Panel noted that the number of pages indicated on the exhibit list did not match the number of pages in the exhibits.
APD 220504
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge failed to make a finding of fact regarding whether there was good cause for failing to meet the requirements of Rule 141.1(d).
APD 220579
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision that the certification of maximum medical improvement / impairment rating became final. The Appeals Panel noted that the certifying doctor was no longer authorized to serve as designated doctor when the certification was submitted, and therefore, the certification was not valid.
APD 220510
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision that the claimant was intoxicated. The Appeals Panel found that expert evidence is not required with regard to whether the claimant had the normal use of his mental and physical faculties at the time of the claimed injury.