APD 211351
The Appeals Panel revered the administrative law judge’s decision that the claimant had a 0% impairment rating. The Appeals Panel noted that the doctor’s narrative indicated the claimant had a 0% impairment rating; however, the doctor marked that the claimant did not have any permanent impairment on the DWC-69. The Appeals Panel explained that a certification of no impairment is different and distinct from a 0% impairment rating.
APD 211383
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the administrative law judge’s discussion of the evidence was inconsistent with the determination of extent of injury.
APD 211271
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision that the claimant had not reached maximum medical improvement. The Appeals Panel noted that in reaching this conclusion, the administrative law judge based her decision solely on the claimant’s testimony. The Appeals Panel reaffirmed that a determination that a claimant has not reached maximum medical improvement must be based on a medical report from a doctor.
APD 211344
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 211185
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 211144
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 211174
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 211141
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 211091-s
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision that the certification of maximum medical improvement became final. The Appeals Panel found that there was compelling evidence of a significant error in applying the AMA Guides. Specifically, the Appeals Panel determined that impairments in the same lower extremity part must be added rather than combined. This decision overturned prior Appeals Panel decisions.
APD 210939
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding impairment rating for CRPS. The Appeals Panel found that, while the doctor used Table 68 on page 3/89 to assess an impairment for the claimant’s left lower extremity CRPS, the doctor failed to use the Causalgia and RSD Section 3.1k on page 3/56 of the AMA Guides. Because of this, the doctor’s impairment rating could not be adopted.