APD 210361
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge adopted a certification where the designated doctor applied Table 42 incorrectly for the reported ROM for flexion contracture and failed to provide ROM measurements in the narrative to support the impairment assessed using Table 45.
APD 210284
The Appeals Panel clarified the Administrative Law Judge’s decision by explaining that the claimant’s failure to attend a referral appointment of a designated doctor could allow the insurance carrier to suspend income benefits under Rule 127.25, unless the claimant shows good cause.
APD 210314
The Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge as reformed. The Appeals Panel noted that the Administrative Law Judge found that the compensable injury included aggravation of pre-existing bilateral L5 spondylolysis but failed to make a finding regarding bilateral L5 spondylolysis.
APD 210393
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because, in determining average weekly wage, the Administrative Law Judge considered only the injured self-employed claimant’s business income and failed to consider the business expenses.
APD 210292
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 210296
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 210056
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision holding that where a designated doctor has been appointed by the Division for the specific issue of extent of injury, it is error for the ALJ to fail to request that the designated doctor’s report on extent of injury be admitted into evidence or admit the designated doctor’s report on extent of injury as an ALJ’s exhibit. Further, the Administrative Law Judge failed to make a finding on a disability period at issue in the case.
APD 210163
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently cited Rule 129.6(d) rather than Rule 129.6(c).
APD 210218
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge made inconsistent and conflicting findings of fact and determinations regarding the issue of timely notice to the employer.
APD 210237
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.