APD 230204
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge because the adopted certification did not rate the compensable injury in the case.
APD 230105
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge because the adopted certification did not rate the compensable injury in the case.
APD 230137
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge because the certifying doctor failed to state the value of Diffusing Capacity of Carbon Monoxide in assessing the claimant’s impairment.
APD 230150
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge because the adopted certification did not rate the compensable injury in the case.
APD 230096
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge because the adopted certification did not rate the compensable injury in the case.
APD 230104
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the administrative law judge because the adopted certification had an internal inconsistency. Specially, the certifying doctor stated that he was using the largest impairment assessed for the right lower extremity but failed to do so.
APD 230066
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision regarding extent-of-injury because the administrative law judge misstated the claimant’s testimony in this case regarding the manner in which the compensable injury was alleged to have occurred.
APD 230029
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 230023
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision regarding maximum medical improvement because the date in the narrative report was different than the date on the DWC-69.
APD 222017
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the administrative law judge on finality. Specifically, the Appeals Panel found that there was compelling medical evidence of a significant error by the certifying doctor in calculating the impairment rating because the range of motion measurements resulted in a higher impairment rating.