AMA Guides® Newsletter - Issue Archive

Articles

1. Common Errors in Spinal Impairment Rating: AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, Definitions of Radiculopathy vs Nonverifiable Radicular Complaints

   James B. Talmage

   Pages 1–17

   DOI: 10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2022.JulAug01

   Abstract

   In assessing spinal impairment, it is imperative to distinguish between limb pain or numbness that might be radicular, but with no objective verification, from symptoms that represent, in fact, true radiculopathy, ie, pain, numbness, or weakness that was related to objective radiculopathy. In the sixth edition of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), this distinction determines what row in the spine tables is used to rate impairment. Failure to discern between nonverifiable radicular complaints and true radiculopathy is a source of frequent errors in spinal impairment rating. True radiculopathy is pain, numbness, and/or weakness from nerve root damage, most commonly from a disc herniation. This article will review how the AMA Guides has dealt with the concept of radiculopathy through the years.
   Show more

2. Best Practices for the Independent Medical Examination of Mental and Behavioral Disorders

   Charl Els, Barry Gelinas, Rose M. Carter, Les Kertay

   Pages 18–59

   DOI: 10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2022.JulAug02

   Abstract

   Independent medical examinations (IMEs) are elective evaluations of clinical conditions and differ from a clinical consultation in several important ways. They are conducted in many medicolegal contexts and are performed by a regulated health professional who is not the treating health care provider. An IME seeks objective information about the examinee's diagnoses, functional abilities and impairments, and other features relevant to addressing medicolegal-related cases by relying on multiple data sources. Best practice guidelines have been established for the completion of physical IMEs. However, similar mental and behavioral disorder (M&BD) standards are less common, and M&BD IMEs often do not follow a consistent process. This article offers guidance on applying and adapting existing standards to M&BD IMEs. We outlined the appropriate use of psychiatric nomenclature and how to apply recent changes to Chapter 14 of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. The article further offers a mechanism for introducing greater objectivity into an otherwise subjective process by employing relevant psychological validity testing and conducting a coherence analysis in formulating an opinion. In summary, we provide a synopsis of current best practices and offer the examiner a method for aligning M&BD IMEs with equally high standards of excellence.
   Show more