|
All Contested Case Subject
Appellate Review
A statement in an appellate opinion that reimbursement for expenses to attend an IME is "compensation" was non-binding dicta because that reasoning was not necessary to the actual issue before the court. Kilby, Constance,
17 CCHR 7 (2012).
Law of the case/issue preclusion does not apply to bind RRU to ARU's determination that claimant had objective findings of impairment. Udosenata, Iquo,
8 CCHR 139 (2003).
The Order on Reconsideration finding claimant capable of medium to medium/light strength level work does not preclude RRU from finding claimant unable to return to regular work. Hardman, Mark B.,
8 CCHR 127 (2003).
Under "law of the case," ARU's finding of PPD did not bind RRU to find claimant eligible for vocational assistance. Spitzer, Rick E.*,
8 CCHR 17 (2003).
ARU's order does not preclude RRU from making an independent finding regarding eligibility for vocational assistance. Spitzer, Rick E.,
8 CCHR 377 (2003).
*Note: Subsequent action
|
