APD 240249
The Appeal’s Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding maximum medical improvement and impairment rating because the adopted certification did not rate the compensable injury.
APD 240197
The Appeal’s Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision for reconstruction of the record.
APD 240115
The Appeals Panel affirmed the administrative law judge’s determination on extent of injury, holding that the compensable injury extended to multiple right shoulder, lumbar, and cervical conditions. However, the Panel reversed the determinations on maximum medical improvement and impairment rating due to internal inconsistencies in the designated doctor’s certification and the stipulated statutory MMI date. The case was remanded for further development, including clarification or reassignment of the designated doctor to properly determine MMI and IR consistent with the statutory MMI date.
APD 240159
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding impairment rating because the certifying doctor failed to complete all necessary range-of-motion measurements.
APD 240162
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to make a mathematical correction to the impairment rating.
APD 240080
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision because the self-insured’s information form for the person identified as the registered agent was a post office box.
APD 240139
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge to make a mathematical correction to the impairment rating.
APD 231788
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision because the adopted certification of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating failed to rate the compensable injury.
APD 231890
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision because the adopted certification of maximum medical improvement and impairment rating failed to rate the compensable injury.
APD 231830
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding impairment rating because the certifying doctor gave a rating that included “routine use of a cane” but the report stated differently.