Appeals Panel: DWC has no Jurisdiction Over Issue that is Pending on Judicial Review
The Appeals Panel has affirmed the decision of a Hearing Officer who concluded that he did not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute over MMI and impairment rating. In Appeals Panel Decision Number 152331, decided February 4, 2016, the parties had attended a November 2014 CCH where a Division hearing officer had issued a decision determining that the compensable injury included a disc bulge/herniation at L4-5; that the claimant had not reached MMI and that no IR could be assigned. The decision of the hearing officer became the final decision of the Appeals Panel pursuant to Section 410.204(c) and the carrier appealed such decision to the district court where it is pending trial pursuant to Section 410.251 et seq.
In 2015 the parties convened for a second CCH in which the claimant raised the issue of his MMI/IR status. The Hearing Officer determined that the Division did not have jurisdiction at the time of the CCH to adjudicate the issues of MMI and impairment rating. The claimant challenged that ruling. The appeals panel declined to overturn the hearing officer’s determination, writing:
Section 410.205(b) provides that a decision of the Appeals Panel is binding during the pendency of an appeal under Subchapter F or G of the 1989 Act (pertaining to judicial review). Section 410.207 provides that during judicial review of an Appeals Panel decision, the Division retains jurisdiction of all other issues related to the claim. See Appeals Panel Decision 001126, decided June 30, 2000.
Because the carrier sought judicial review of the decision dated November 20, 2014, on the issues of MMI and IR, we affirm the hearing officer’s decision that the Division did not have jurisdiction at the time of the CCH on October 26, 2015, to determine the issues of MMI and IR.
The result in this case seems questionable at first glance. The first round of dispute resolution adjudicated the claimant’s MMI status as of the date of the first CCH. The district court does not have jurisdiction to determine the issues of MMI or IR after the date of the first CCH. Therefore, it would seem logical that the Division could adjudicate the validity of a certification of MMI and IR that was rendered after the first CCH. However, the carrier’s position in the first CCH is that the claimant reached MMI prior to the first CCH. If the carrier’s position is correct, a subsequently certified date of MMI and IR would not be valid. Therefore, the appeals panel’s decision in this case would appear to be correct.
FOLIO
