APD 250067
The Appeals Panel reversed the maximum medical improvement ruling after finding that the administrative law judge had erroneously relied on the wrong certification rather than the doctor’s updated one.
APD 241600
The Appeals Panel reversed the ALJ’s adoption of a 26% impairment rating, finding that it was based on a non-compensable traumatic brain injury and improper eye impairment calculations. Although the ALJ found no contrary evidence, the Panel determined the certification was clearly flawed. The panel instead adopted an alternate certification from the same designated doctor, which assigned a 9% impairment rating and properly excluded non-compensable conditions. The claimant’s MMI date of November 30, 2022, was affirmed.
APD 241572
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge mistakenly used the wrong date of maximum medical improvement.
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.