AMA Guides® Newsletter - Issue Archive

Articles

1. Erroneous Impairment Ratings

   Christopher R. Brigham

   Pages 1–3, 9

   DOI: 10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2006.JulAug01

   Abstract

   This article continues a discussion of the results of a nationwide study that reviewed 2100 impairment ratings and found a large number of errors (see the May/June issue of The Guides Newsletter). Spinal impairment ratings, for example, often are erroneous. Although the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, (AMA Guides) clearly specifies use of the Diagnosis related estimates (DRE) method, evaluators sometimes incorrectly use the range-of-motion (ROM) method, which is fraught with potential error and typically results in higher impairment ratings. The most common problem associated with rating the lower extremities is combining multiple duplicative impairments. Multiple impairments typically are combined rather than added because the latter usually results in overrating impairments. A sidebar highlights red flags to erroneous AMA Guides ratings, and evaluators can take a number of steps to ensure accurate ratings. The first of these is to ensure an unbiased rating, preferably by a board-certified physician who, ideally, also has certification in the performance of independent medical and impairment examinations. The client requesting the evaluation should provide a cover letter describing the specifics of the evaluation, and the evaluator's report should comply with standards defined in the AMA Guides. All submitted reports should be reviewed by a physician experienced in the use of the AMA Guides; this cannot be accomplished by a nonphysician reviewer.
   Show more

2. Special Feature: Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS): Unratable Through the Pain Chapter

   Robert J. Barth

   Pages 4–8

   DOI: 10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2006.JulAug02

   Abstract

   A sidebar titled “Rating Impairment for [complex regional pain syndrome] CRPS Type 1” in the March/April issue of The Guides Newsletter states: “Do NOT use the pain chapter to rate CRPS” because there is no well-defined pathophysiologic basis. That conclusion is contradicted by the pain chapter, which lists CRPS among conditions considered ratable, but accompanying text provides no explanation how this determination was made. This article attempts to resolve the conflict between the sidebar in The Guides Newsletter and the pain chapter. The lack of a well-defined pathophysiologic basis for CRPS is the reason for the position stated in the sidebar, and a review of the relevant professional literature confirms this reasoning. Further, the concept of CRPS itself is ambiguous and was intentionally designed to be “general” and “descriptive” and historically has been diagnosed using nonstandardized, idiosyncratic, or incompatible diagnostic systems. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment is self-contradictory regarding diagnostic criteria and terminology (eg, is CRPS-1 synonymous with RSD, causalgia, or neither?). CRPS lacks any well-defined pathophysiology, is highly ambiguous and controversial, involves characteristics that compromise the credibility of any examinee making such a presentation, and is a good example of a condition that should be evaluated using the mental and behavioral disorders chapter.
   Show more

3. Erroneous Impairment Ratings Companion: Impairment Rating Critique and the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

   Craig Uejo, Phil Walker

   Pages 10–11

   DOI: 10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2006.JulAug03

   Abstract

   A 2005 Benefits Review Board decision by the US Department of Labor, Peter J. Desjardins vs Bath Iron Works Corporation affirmed a decision and order (2004-LHC-1364) regarding the utility of impairment rating critique. The administrative law judge credited the rating opinion of an expert physician reviewer (who had not seen the claimant) over that of the treating physician. The claimant's physician was awarded 20% upper extremity impairment, but, following the review and opinion of an expert reviewer, the award was reduced to 4%. The claimant appealed, largely on the argument that the expert reviewer had reviewed the report by the patient's physician, not the claimant himself and that the expert's opinion properly relied on the correct use of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). The appeals judges noted that the administrative judge properly noted that the AMA Guides was suitable for use (and was the basis of the treating physician's award). The administrative law judge found that the expert reviewer's opinion was based on the specifics of the present case and on his knowledge and application of the AMA Guides, which together warranted determinative weight, based on the expert reviewer's credentials, experience, and well-reasoned opinion. This decision confirms that expert reviewers can provide evidence for the fact finder to evaluate the treating physician's opinion to determine if it is well reasoned and documented.
   Show more