APD 251691
The Appeals Panel affirmed the ALJ’s extent-of-injury findings and the correct disability period but reversed other portions of the decision. The Panel held that the ALJ exceeded the scope of the disability issue by awarding disability outside the agreed dates, and those portions were struck. The Panel also ruled that the ALJ erred in finding the first MMI/IR certification was not delivered by verifiable means, concluding instead that delivery occurred on July 16, 2024, which required remand to determine whether finality applied under Labor Code §408.123.
APD 251632
The Appeals Panel affirmed the ALJ’s extent-of-injury determination but reformed the decision to include the parties’ stipulation that statutory MMI was September 9, 2025. Because the Decision was signed after the statutory MMI date, the Panel held it was legal error for the ALJ to find the claimant had not yet reached MMI.
APD 251625
The Appeals Panel affirmed the ALJ’s extent-of-injury, MMI, and IR determinations but reformed the decision to correct clerical errors.
APD 251621
The Appeals Panel reversed all disputed determinations because the designated doctor did not have the complete medical record, including the missing emergency department records he expressly requested, before issuing opinions on extent of injury, MMI, IR, and disability.
APD 251547
The Appeals Panel affirmed the ALJ’s decision that the compensable injury did not extend to the additional claimed conditions, including left ankle, right knee, and right foot sprains, or lumbar radiculopathy. It also affirmed the impairment rating of five percent. However, the Panel reformed and corrected the maximum medical improvement (MMI) date from August 19, 2024, to June 19, 2024, based on the designated doctor’s amended certification that properly considered the compensable injury.
APD 251405
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 May 1, 2025, with the record closing on August 1, 2025, in (city), Texas, with (administrative law judge) presiding as the administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ resolved […]
APD 251474
The Appeals Panel affirmed the ALJ’s findings that the worker’s compensable right knee injury extended to a complex tear of the medial meniscus and that the claimant had not reached maximum medical improvement, so an impairment rating could not yet be assigned. The panel also affirmed that the claimant had disability from December 9 through December 22, 2024. However, it reversed the ALJ’s finding of disability on December 23, 2024, ruling that the evidence showed the claimant had returned to work that day and was no longer disabled.
APD 251493
The Appeals Panel affirmed the ALJ’s finding that the claimant’s compensable injury did not extend to a T7-T8 disc bulge or thoracic dextroscoliosis. However, it reversed and remanded the case because the ALJ failed to address whether the injury extended to a T8-T9 disc bulge, an issue that was actually litigated.
APD 251341
The Appeals Panel affirmed the ALJ’s findings that the claimant’s compensable injury extended to multiple head and brain conditions, including a subdural hemorrhage, concussion, post-concussion syndrome, vestibular disorder, visual field defects, and occipital lobe stroke, but not to irregular flow signals in the posterior cerebral artery. It also affirmed that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement on March 10, 2025. However, the panel reversed and remanded the impairment rating issue, finding that the designated doctor failed to properly apply the AMA Guides in evaluating visual impairment and must reassess the rating using the required visual testing methods and equipment.
APD 251308
The Appeals Panel affirmed the ALJ’s decision that the compensable injury did not extend to a left shoulder rotator cuff tear, a disc bulge at C3-4, thoracic strain, or dysphagia. However, it reversed the ALJ’s findings that the injury did not extend to disc bulges at C4-5 and C5-6, finding a misstatement of medical evidence, and remanded that issue for further consideration.