APD 220360
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding the certification of impairment rating. The Appeals Panel noted that the certifying doctor assigned impairment for the Claimant’s right wrist using range-of-motion measurements taken for supination and pronation, which are not appropriate measurements for the wrist.
APD 220318
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding disability because the decision found disability through the date of the CCH, which exceeded the scope of the issue.
APD 220411
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to make a mathematical correction to the certification of maximum medical improvement / impairment rating.
APD 220307
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to make a typographical correction.
APD 220266
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge because there was no certification in evidence rating the compensable injury in the case.
APD 220303
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge failed to address an extent-of-injury condition added by the parties at the hearing.
APD 220260
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to make a mathematical correction to the certification of maximum medical improvement / impairment rating.
APD 220255
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision regarding maximum medical improvement because the Administrative Law Judge erred in adopting a certification that was not signed by the certifying doctor.
APD 220106
The Appeals Panel reformed and modified the decision in part, and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the ALJ’s decision was incomplete. The Panel reversed and remanded the determinations on extent of injury, MMI, and impairment rating because those findings relied on designated doctors whose proper appointment was not fully addressed in findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Panel also reversed the determination that Dr. P was properly appointed and remanded for findings on whether both designated doctors were properly appointed under the Act and Division rules.
APD 220150
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision regarding impairment rating. The Appeals Panel noted that, although the certifying doctor was not required to use all range of motions deficits, he did not accurately reflect the impairment assessed for the flexion range of motion he measured.