APD 210067
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision because the designated doctor failed to give an opinion regarding the entire extent-of-injury. The Appeals Panel found error in the designated doctor’s report which stated that additional testing was necessary. However, the designated doctor failed to have the testing done before issuing the report.
APD 201870
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge failed to make a determination on the entire disability period.
APD 201812
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge adopted an impairment rating that did not consider and rate the entire compensable injury in the case.
APD 201713
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the administrative law judge for clerical errors.
APD 201479
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the administrative law judge because evidence that was clearly part of the hearing was not made part of the record.
APD 201379
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge based his determination that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement on an incorrect belief that the parties had stipulated to the issue.
APD 201401
The appeals panel remanded the case back to the administrative law judge to consider whether the claimant had good cause for failing to attend the contested case hearing.
APD 201244-s
The appeals panel issued an S-case remanding the matter back to the administrative law judge. The appeals panel found that when a designated doctor issues simultaneous valid certifications while assessing extent-of-injury, Rule 130.12 applies, even when neither party raised an extent-of-injury dispute at the contested case hearing. Because rule 130.12 applied, the appeals panel determined that neither certification became final. The appeals panel also found that the administrative law judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the carrier’s continuance request for an RME because the carrier waited over eight months after the designated doctor’s exam to request the RME.
APD 201060
This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on June 15, 2020, in (city), Texas, with (administrative law judge) presiding as the administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ resolved the disputed issues by determining that: (1) […]
APD 201175
This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing was held on June 30, 2020, in (city), Texas, with (administrative law judge) presiding as the administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ resolved the disputed issues by deciding that: (1) the […]