APD 210927
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision on impairment rating because there was no certification that rated the entire compensable injury or matched the date of maximum medical improvement.
APD 210690
The Appeals Panel reformed the administrative law judge’s decision to correct a mathematical error in calculating the impairment rating.
APD 210405
The Appeals Panel reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision which found the claimant’s certification of MMI/IR did not become final because it was not provided by verifiable means. The Appeals Panel confirmed that written notice is verifiable when it is provided from any source in a manner that reasonably confirms delivery to the party, and that this may include acknowledged receipt by the injured employee or insurance carrier, a statement of personal delivery, confirmed delivery by e-mail, confirmed delivery by facsimile transmission, or some other confirmed delivery to the home or business address.
APD 210430
The Appeals Panel reformed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently indicated in a finding of fact that the claimant was the person who sent the DWC-69.
APD 210317
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge incorrectly required expert medical evidence regarding sprains and strains.
APD 210332
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge failed to make all necessary findings of fact.
APD 210080
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge because the address provided on the carrier’s information form for the person identified as the registered agent was a post office box, where service of process could not be effectuated.
APD 201244-s
The appeals panel issued an S-case remanding the matter back to the administrative law judge. The appeals panel found that when a designated doctor issues simultaneous valid certifications while assessing extent-of-injury, Rule 130.12 applies, even when neither party raised an extent-of-injury dispute at the contested case hearing. Because rule 130.12 applied, the appeals panel determined that neither certification became final. The appeals panel also found that the administrative law judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the carrier’s continuance request for an RME because the carrier waited over eight months after the designated doctor’s exam to request the RME.
APD 200548
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 February 25, 2020, in (city), Texas, with (administrative law judge) presiding as the administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ resolved the disputed issues by deciding that: (1) the […]
APD 200228
This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing (CCH) was held on August 29, 2019, and November 13, 2019, with the record closing on January 21, 2020, in (city), Texas, with (administrative law judge) presiding as the administrative law […]