APD 221634
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision regarding the certification of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating. The Appeals Panel noted that the certifying doctor rated the wrong portion of the claimant’s spine.
APD 221596
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 221547
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 221544
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the administrative law judge failed to make findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order regarding all disputed conditions.
APD 221456
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the administrative law judge because there were no certifications in evidence that rated the entire compensable injury with the correct statutory date of MMI, as agreed to by the parties.
APD 221481
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision because, although there was a proper conclusion of law, the administrative law judge failed to make a finding of fact on an issue.
APD 221500
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge because there was no certification in evidence rating the compensable injury in the case.
APD 221389
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the administrative law judge because the adopted certification had an internal inconsistency between the MMI date certified on the DWC-69 and the MMI date certified in the accompanying narrative report.
APD 221463
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the administrative law judge because the adopted certification contained numerous inaccuracies and discrepancies in applying the AMA Guides.
APD 221349
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision regarding finality of a certification of maximum medical improvement / impairment rating. The Appeals Panel noted that a DRIS note in DWC’s computer indicating the claimant called to dispute the certification was insufficient to establish that the report was delivered to the claimant by verifiable means.