AMA Guides® Newsletter - Issue Archive

Articles

1. Malingering and Other Validity Considerations: With an Emphasis on Document Review

   Chris Stewart Patterson, Robert J. Barth, Christopher R. Brigham, James B. Talmage, Steven Leclair, Michael Coupland

   Pages 1–12

   DOI: 10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2012.JanFeb01

   Abstract

   Many of the methods used to assess impairment rely on the completeness, accuracy, and reliability of patients’ self-presentations, and evaluators should be able to identify behavioral factors such as illness behavior and malingering; the latter is not ratable, but its presence complicates appropriate case management. This article focuses on the clinical data and the analysis that can be helpful in identifying malingering, as well as validity problems during document and medical file reviews. According to the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, examiners always should be aware of the possibility of malingering during impairment evaluations, and the possibility of avoiding responsibility and/or obtaining monetary awards increases the likelihood of exaggeration and/or malingering. Current methods for assessing malingering in general assess the probability of malingering based on comparisons to research statistics and free the evaluator from any reliance on expert opinion. Correlating multiple clinical sources is useful in assessing the validity of a clinical presentation and includes the individual's pre-existing status; information about the injury; the history of the presenting illness, past medical and social histories, physical examination, questionnaires and scales, functional capacity evaluations, and video surveillance. Coherence analysis is a method of clinical data review that uses multiple themes to determine if data provide an integrated presentation. Evaluators should highlight issues of discontinuity, inconsistencies, incongruencies, noncompliance, or poor effort.
   Show more

2. Rating Distal Clavicle Resection

   Charles N. Books, James B. Talmage, J. Mark Melhorn

   Pages 13–16

   DOI: 10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2012.JanFeb02

   Abstract

   Indications for excision of the distal clavicle include symptomatic degenerative arthritis of the acromioclavicular joint, impingement syndrome, and osteolysis of the distal clavicle if nonoperative treatment has failed. Distal clavicular resection (DCR), one could argue, is by definition an impairment because of the loss of a portion of a body part, the clavicle. Yet a competently performed and uncomplicated DCR generally results in improved function, not loss of use. DCR was first mentioned in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fourth Edition, which stated that a resection arthroplasty of the acromioclavicular joint warrants 10% upper extremity impairment (UEI). Rating DCR using the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, is almost the same as using the fourth edition, but evaluators can use one of two approaches: The rating physician can select a 3% rating for DCR using the fifth edition and claim to be literally following the instructions and providing a sensible rating in view of the generally good results reported in the orthopedic literature following a DCR. Alternatively, a rating physician who is aware of the historical precedent underlying the 10% UEI in Table 16-27 could cite this and the absence of an instruction in the Arthroplasty section to justify a 10% impairment rating. In the sixth edition, DCR is a key factor in classifying an acromioclavicular joint injury or disease but is disregarded in the rating of rotator cuff or glenohumeral pathology.
   Show more