APD 211402
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision on maximum medical improvement and impairment rating because it was unclear if the doctor considered only the compensable injuries to determine the date of maximum medical improvement.
APD 211507
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision that Achilles tendinosis was part of the compensable injury. The Appeals Panel reasoned that Achilles tendinosis is a condition that is a matter beyond common knowledge and experience and requires expert medical evidence. Although the records in the case showed the claimant was diagnosed with Achilles tendinosis, none of the medical reports causally linked Achilles tendinosis to the compensable injury.
APD 211474
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision on maximum medical improvement and impairment rating because of internal inconsistencies in the doctor’s report regarding the date of maximum medical improvement.
APD 211389
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision for reconstruction of the record. The Appeals Panel noted that the number of pages indicated on the exhibit list did not match the number of pages in the exhibits.
APD 211412
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision on impairment rating because of internal inconsistencies in the doctor’s report. In the narrative of the report, the doctor certified a 0% impairment rating. However, on the DWC-69, the doctor marked that the claimant had no permanent impairment rating. The Appeals Panel noted that a certification of no impairment is different and distinct from a 0% impairment rating.
APD 211351
The Appeals Panel revered the administrative law judge’s decision that the claimant had a 0% impairment rating. The Appeals Panel noted that the doctor’s narrative indicated the claimant had a 0% impairment rating; however, the doctor marked that the claimant did not have any permanent impairment on the DWC-69. The Appeals Panel explained that a certification of no impairment is different and distinct from a 0% impairment rating.
APD 211383
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the administrative law judge’s discussion of the evidence was inconsistent with the determination of extent of injury.
APD 211271
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision that the claimant had not reached maximum medical improvement. The Appeals Panel noted that in reaching this conclusion, the administrative law judge based her decision solely on the claimant’s testimony. The Appeals Panel reaffirmed that a determination that a claimant has not reached maximum medical improvement must be based on a medical report from a doctor.
APD 211344
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision for reconstruction of the record. The Appeals Panel noted that the number of pages indicated on the exhibit list did not match the number of pages in the exhibits.
APD 211185
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to make a mathematical correction to the certification of maximum medical improvement / impairment rating.