APD 211600
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision regarding disability because there was no specific finding of fact regarding the issue of disability as was certified in this case.
APD 211402
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision on maximum medical improvement and impairment rating because it was unclear if the doctor considered only the compensable injuries to determine the date of maximum medical improvement.
APD 211507
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision that Achilles tendinosis was part of the compensable injury. The Appeals Panel reasoned that Achilles tendinosis is a condition that is a matter beyond common knowledge and experience and requires expert medical evidence. Although the records in the case showed the claimant was diagnosed with Achilles tendinosis, none of the medical reports causally linked Achilles tendinosis to the compensable injury.
APD 211474
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision on maximum medical improvement and impairment rating because of internal inconsistencies in the doctor’s report regarding the date of maximum medical improvement.
APD 211411
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision regarding the claimant’s impairment rating because the doctor’s narrative failed to document clinical findings from the examination that were used to assess impairment.
APD 211510
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision for reconstruction of the record.
APD 211462
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision for reconstruction of the record. The Appeals Panel noted that there was only a partial recording of the hearing.
APD 211389
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision for reconstruction of 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 211412
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision on impairment rating because of internal inconsistencies in the doctor’s report. In the narrative of the report, the doctor certified a 0% impairment rating. However, on the DWC-69, the doctor marked that the claimant had no permanent impairment rating. The Appeals Panel noted that a certification of no impairment is different and distinct from a 0% impairment rating.
APD 211335
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding compensability. The Appeals Panel reasoned that, where the Administrative Law Judge found the insurance carrier waived its right to contest compensability and failed to appeal that determination, the injury must be deemed a compensable injury.