APD 210517
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision that the insurance carrier was liable for payment of accrued benefits pursuant to rule 124.3. The Appeals Panel noted that rule 124.3 does not apply in a case where the insurance carrier does not file a dispute of compensability or liability.
APD 210561
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision because the address on the insurance carrier’s registered-agent-information form was a post office box, where service of process could be effectuated.
APD 210405
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision which found the claimant’s certification of MMI/IR did not become final because it was not provided by verifiable means. The Appeals Panel confirmed that written notice is verifiable when it is provided from any source in a manner that reasonably confirms delivery to the party, and that this may include acknowledged receipt by the injured employee or insurance carrier, a statement of personal delivery, confirmed delivery by e-mail, confirmed delivery by facsimile transmission, or some other confirmed delivery to the home or business address.
APD 210524
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. The Appeals Panel also noted that clarification was needed from the designated doctor regarding the calculation of IR.
APD 210422
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge’s discussion of the evidence was inconsistent with the determination of extent of injury.
APD 210431
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 210605
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision for reconstruction of the record because there was no recording in the file.
APD 210449
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision 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 210430
The Appeals Panel reformed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently indicated in a finding of fact that the claimant was the person who sent the DWC-69.
APD 210457
The Appeals Panel reformed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge mistakenly referred to the date of one of the bone fide offers of employment as June 24, 2020, instead of June 25, 2020.