APD 250824
The Appeals Panel reversed and remanded the ALJ’s decision that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement on August 8, 2024, with a four percent impairment rating. The claimant failed to attend the contested case hearing and did not respond to a 10-day letter, later explaining she was in a rehabilitation facility due to spine surgery. Because her allegations, if true, could establish good cause for her absence, the panel remanded the case for the ALJ to determine good cause and, if found, to allow the parties to present evidence on the merits of the claim.
APD 240099
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision regarding jurisdiction because the Administrative Law Judge failed to make findings of fact, conclusions of law, or a decision regarding the issue.
APD 230503
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision that the insurance carrier waived its right to contest compensability. The Appeals Panel noted that, although the claimant filed two different dates for the same injury, the carrier’s PLN-1 for the second date of injury contained sufficient claim-specific information to inform the claimant of the carrier’s denial of the first date of injury.
APD 230426
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the Administrative Law Judge had previously worked on the case as an attorney three years before the contested case hearing.
APD 230080
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision regarding entitlement to supplemental income benefits because the administrative law judge’s discussion of the evidence was inconsistent with the determination of entitlement.
APD 221776
The Appeals Panel noted that the administrative law judge’s decision became final because the employer, who filed the appeal, was not a party to the CCH and no appeal was filed by either the claimant or the carrier.
APD 221571
The Appeals Panel reversed the administrative law judge’s decision that the Division had good cause to set a designated doctor examination in excess of 75 miles from the claimant’s residence. The Appeals Panel reasoned that Rule 126.6 does not apply to designated doctor examinations.
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 221447
The Appeals Panel reversed the decision because the administrative law judge failed to indicate that an exhibit was received or admitted.