APD 210196
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision so that the Administrative Law Judge could consider whether the claimant had good cause for failing to attend the contested case hearing.
APD 210207
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 210093
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 210186
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge ruled on a “right knee meniscal tear” instead of a “right knee lateral meniscal tear.” The Appeals Panel noted the parties had agreed during the hearing to add “lateral” to the condition.
APD 210249
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 210136
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision for reconstruction of the record. The Appeals Panel noted that, for several of the exhibits, the number of pages indicated on the exhibit list did not match the number of pages in the exhibit.
APD 210061
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge because the exclusion of the claimant’s DWC-52 for the first quarter of SIBs was in error. The Appeals Panel reasoned that Section 410.163(b) provides, in part, that an Administrative Law Judge shall ensure the preservation of the rights of the parties and the full development of facts required for the determinations to be made. The Appeals Panel concluded that the DWC-52 is an essential Division record necessary for the full development of the record.
APD 210137
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge which was issued after the claimant failed to attend the hearing. The Appeals Panel noted that a good cause order issued by the Administrative Law Judge was defective because, although the style on the order reflected the correct docket number, it did not contain the claimant’s correct name.
APD 210067
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision because the designated doctor failed to give an opinion regarding the entire extent-of-injury. The Appeals Panel found error in the designated doctor’s report which stated that additional testing was necessary. However, the designated doctor failed to have the testing done before issuing the report.
APD 210080
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge because the address provided on the carrier’s information form for the person identified as the registered agent was a post office box, where service of process could not be effectuated.