APD 231700
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to make a mathematical correction to the certification of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating.
APD 231563
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding extent of injury because the parties stipulated that the terms sprain and strain were used interchangeably.
APD 231483
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge decided that the compensable injury extends to left arm “abrasions” rather than a left arm “injury.”
APD 231558
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding maximum medical improvement because the certifying doctor considered a condition that was not part of the compensable injury.
APD 231438
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding finality. The Appeals Panel noted that simply sending the certification by fax to a correct fax number without verification of delivery does not establish delivery by verifiable means.
APD 231491
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding impairment rating because the certifying doctor did not reference the specific range-of-motion measurements he used to compare with the measurements from the examination.
APD 231436
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge failed to make a finding of fact that the adopted certification was supported by the preponderance of the evidence.
APD 231453
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding impairment rating because the certifying doctor’s narrative contained conflicting range-of-motion measurements.
APD 231368
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge failed to make a determination on the entire disability period.
APD 231290
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision on finality because the Administrative Law Judge failed notify the parties on the record that he was going to take official notice of any of the DRIS notes and such DRIS note was not admitted into evidence.