APD 220880
he Appeals Panel reversed and rendered the ALJ’s decision, holding that although the claimant sustained an injury in the course and scope of employment, she did not sustain a compensable injury because compensation was not payable. The Panel concluded that the claimant failed, without good cause, to timely notify her employer of the injury, relieving the self-insured of liability under Sections 409.001 and 409.002.
APD 220510
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision that the claimant was intoxicated. The Appeals Panel found that expert evidence is not required with regard to whether the claimant had the normal use of his mental and physical faculties at the time of the claimed injury.
APD 211462
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision for reconstruction of the record. The Appeals Panel noted that there was only a partial recording of the hearing.
APD 211335
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding compensability. The Appeals Panel reasoned that, where the Administrative Law Judge found the insurance carrier waived its right to contest compensability and failed to appeal that determination, the injury must be deemed a compensable injury.
APD 211352
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to correct the disability period.
APD 210714
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision that the insurance carrier was not entitled to a presumption of intoxication because “there was little evidence of the alleged drug screen or its results.” The Appeals Panel noted that Section 401.013(c) refers to a positive drug test based on a blood test or urinalysis “but does not specify any other requirements to establish a rebuttable presumption of intoxication.” The Appeals Panel found that, even without actual results, reference in the medical records to a positive drug test was enough to establish the presumption.
APD 210517
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision that the insurance carrier was liable for payment of accrued benefits pursuant to rule 124.3. The Appeals Panel noted that rule 124.3 does not apply in a case where the insurance carrier does not file a dispute of compensability or liability.
APD 210561
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision because the address on the insurance carrier’s registered-agent-information form was a post office box, where service of process could be effectuated.
APD 210605
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision for reconstruction of the record because there was no recording in the file.
APD 210218
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge made inconsistent and conflicting findings of fact and determinations regarding the issue of timely notice to the employer.