APD 260374
The Appeals Panel reversed the ALJ’s denial of supplemental income benefits after finding the decision was based on a material misstatement of the evidence regarding the claimant’s job search efforts. The record showed the claimant met the required number of weekly job searches, contrary to the ALJ’s finding.
APD 252043
The Appeals Panel affirmed the ALJ’s determination that the claimant was entitled to supplemental income benefits (SIBs) for the first and second quarters, finding reasonable grounds for noncompliance with work search requirements due to timing of the MMI/IR decision and application notice. However, the Panel reversed the award of SIBs for the third quarter, concluding the claimant failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for not completing required work searches during portions of the qualifying period.
APD 251609
The Appeals Panel reversed the ALJ’s award of first-quarter SIBs because the ALJ made an unappealed finding that the claimant’s underemployment during the qualifying periods was not a direct result of the compensable injury, which legally bars SIBs entitlement for both quarters. Based on that binding finding, the Panel rendered a decision that the claimant is not entitled to first-quarter SIBs.
APD 220930
The Appeals Panel affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision but noted that the Administrative Law Judge incorrectly stated the claimant underwent a total knee replacement instead of a total hip replacement. Under the circumstances of the case, the Appeals Panel found that the typographical error did not affect the outcome of the case.
APD 201172
The appeals panel rendered a new decision that the claimant was entitled to the second quarter of supplemental income benefits. The administrative law judge found that the claimant failed to make the required number of job searches for two weeks during the qualifying period. The appeals panel noted that the two weeks were at a time that the work search compliance standards for supplemental income benefits were suspended due to the public health disaster pursuant to Commissioner’s Bulletin # B-0012-20.
APD 191783
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 September 10, 2019, 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 180839
The Appeals Panel affirmed the ALJ’s determinations on extent of injury, MMI, and impairment rating, concluding that the compensable injury did not extend to the claimed cervical spine conditions, that the claimant reached MMI on June 16, 2016, and that the correct impairment rating was five percent. The Panel reformed the decision to correct the name of the self-insured’s registered agent for service of process. However, the Panel reversed and remanded the determination that the claimant was not entitled to first, second, or third quarter supplemental income benefits (SIBs) because the ALJ failed to make required findings of fact on that issue.
APD 170747
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 March 6, 2017, in (city), Texas, with (hearing officer) presiding as hearing officer. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the respondent (claimant) is […]
APD 170345
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 January 4, 2017, in (city), Texas, with (hearing officer) presiding as hearing officer. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that: (1) the respondent (claimant) […]
APD 160770
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 April 5, 2016, in Lufkin, Texas, with (hearing officer) presiding as hearing officer. The hearing officer resolved the disputed issues by deciding that the appellant (claimant) is […]