APD 231076
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding finality. The Appeals Panel noted that the certifying doctor’s miscalculation of the impairment for range-of-motion loss constituted compelling medical evidence of a significant error, and therefore, the exception in Labor Code Section 408.123(f)(1)(A) applied.
APD 230778
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the administrative law judge failed to make findings of fact on the issues of finality or disability.
APD 230779
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision regarding 90-day finality, noting that a party may not prevent verifiable delivery.
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.
APD 221537
The Appeals Panel struck a portion of the decision because the administrative law judge made a determination on an issue that was not before the administrative law judge.
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 221428
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 were labeled for the right shoulder rather than the left shoulder.
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.
APD 221291
The Appeals’ Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision regarding finality. The Appeals’ Panel found that, since the claimant testified that she received the certification directly from the certifying doctor, the claimant did receive the certification by verifiable means.
APD 220994
The Appeals’ Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision regarding finality. The Appeals’ Panel reasoned that “verifiable means” concerns proof of delivery and not proof of receipt.