Appeals Panel Recalculates IR Containing a “Mathematical Error”

The Appeals Panel has concluded that it has the authority to make “mathematical corrections” to an impairment rating even when no doctor has issued a report that supports the new rating adopted by the Division. In Appeals Panel Decision Number 152464, decided February 17, 2016, the appeals panel reversed a portion of the hearing officer’s decision that found a 12 percent impairment rating and rendered a decision that the impairment rating was actually 16 percent.

In reviewing the impairment rating for the claimant’s compensable knee injury, the appeals panel concluded that the evaluating doctor “mistakenly assigned 0% impairment for 25° of extension of the left hip. Table 40, page 3/78 provides moderate impairment, 4% WP impairment, for ROM measured 20°-29.” Rather than remanding the case to the doctor to calculate and certify a new impairment rating, the appeals panel rendered a decision that adopted a new rating. The appeals panel wrote:

The Appeals Panel has previously stated that, where the certifying doctor’s report provides the component parts of the rating that are to be combined and the act of combining those numbers is a mathematical correction which does not involve medical judgment or discretion, the Appeals Panel can recalculate the correct IR from the figures provided in the certifying doctor’s report and render a new decision as to the correct IR. See APD 121194, decided September 6, 2012; APD 041413, decided July 30, 2004; APD 100111, decided March 22, 2010; and APD 101949, decided February 22, 2011. Under the facts of this case, the certifying doctor’s assigned IR can be mathematically corrected based on the documented measurements for the left hip.

Assigning 4% impairment for loss of ROM based on 25° of extension with the previous impairment assigned based on Table 40 results in 12% impairment for the left hip rather than 8% as assigned by Dr. C. Combing 12% impairment for the left hip with 4% impairment for the left knee results in a WP impairment for the compensable injury of 16% rather than 12%.

The Hearing Officer found that the preponderance of the other medical evidence is not contrary to Dr. C’s assigned IR, and after a mathematical correction, that finding is supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the hearing officer’s determination that the claimant’s IR is 12% and we render a new decision that the claimant’s IR is 16%, as mathematically corrected.