APD 211064
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding the issue of Timely Filing of a Claim. The Appeals Panel noted that, although the Administrative Law Judge made a conclusion of law, decision, and discussed the timely filing of a claim in the discussion of the evidence, the Administrative Law Judge failed to make a finding of fact whether the claimant timely filed a claim for compensation with the Division.
APD 211085
The Appeals Panel reformed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge failed to modify the disability issue as agreed to by the parties.
APD 210927
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision on impairment rating because there was no certification that rated the entire compensable injury or matched the date of maximum medical improvement.
APD 210959
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 210884
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision on impairment rating because there was no certification that rated the entire compensable injury or matched the date of maximum medical improvement.
APD 210843
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision on impairment rating because there was no certification that rated the entire compensable injury.
APD 210690
The Appeals Panel reformed the administrative law judge’s decision to correct a mathematical error in calculating the impairment rating.
APD 210679
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision because the self-insured failed to provide the name and address of a registered agent in Texas.
APD 210738
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge did not make a specific finding of fact regarding the issue of disability as was certified in the case.
APD 210736
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 when there is an intervening injury, the correct standard of law is whether the intervening injury is the sole cause of the disputed condition or disability.