APD 241388
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently found that DWC did not have jurisdiction regarding the processing of a DWC-45. The Appeals Panel noted that an administrative law judge does not have the authority to determine whether an approved DWC-45 meets the requirements of Rule 141.1(d).
APD 241524
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge issued an LOC after the hearing and admitted the response from the designated doctor without giving the parties an opportunity for review of or response to the new evidence.
APD 241617
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the adopted certification did not contain a narrative report as required by Rule 130.1(d)(1).
APD 241458
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge failed to provide the parties the right to review, object to, and provide rebuttal evidence to evidence admitted after the hearing.
APD 241330
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding maximum medical improvement and impairment rating. The Appeals Panel noted that there was only one certification in evidence that came from a referral doctor. They further noted that section 408.125 requires a designated doctor to be appointed in all disputes regarding impairment rating.
APD 241268
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision because the adopted certification failed to rate the compensable injury.
APD 241172
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision regarding impairment rating because the Administrative Law Judge mistakenly determined that the certifying doctor found the impairment rating to be a zero percent rather than the five percent contained in the doctor’s report.
APD 241147
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge’s description of the injury was inconsistent with the testimony.
APD 241035
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to reform a finding of fact to conform to the evidence.
APD 240974
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision because the pay records were for two-week periods, not one week periods as indicated by the Administrative Law Judge.