Errata

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-5
Keyword(s):  
Psychotic Disorders ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Vestibular Disorders ◽  
Loss Of Function ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Neurologic Disorders ◽  
Upper And Lower Extremities ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Extensive List ◽  
Mental And Behavioral Disorders

Abstract Although most chapters in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, instruct evaluators to perform impairment ratings by first assigning a diagnosis-based class and then assigning a grade within that class, Chapter 13, The Central and Peripheral Nervous System, continues to use a methodology similar to that of the fifth edition. The latter was criticized for duplicating materials that were presented in other chapters and for producing different ratings, so the revision of Chapter 13 attempts to maintain consistency between this chapter and those that address mental and behavioral disorders, loss of function in upper and lower extremities, loss of bowel control, and bladder and sexual function. A table titled Summary of Chapters Used to Rate Various Neurologic Disorders directs physicians to the relevant chapters (ie, instead of Chapter 13) to consult in rating neurologic disorders; the extensive list of conditions that should be addressed in other chapters includes but is not limited to radiculopathy, plexus injuries and other plexopathies, focal neuropathy, complex regional pain syndrome, visual and vestibular disorders, and a range of primary mood, anxiety, and psychotic disorders. The article comments in detail on sections of this chapter, identifies changes in the sixth edition, and provide guidance regarding use of the new edition, resulting in less duplication and greater consistency.

Assessing Mental and Behavioral Disorder Impairment: Overview of Sixth Edition Approaches

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Norma Leclair ◽  
Steve Leclair ◽  
Robert Barth
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Behavioral Disorders ◽  
Psychotic Disorders ◽  
Behavioral Disorder ◽  
Behavioral Impairment ◽  
Central Nervous System Damage ◽  
Brain Functioning ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Mental And Behavioral Disorders

Abstract Chapter 14, Mental and Behavioral Disorders, in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, defines a process for assessing permanent impairment, including providing numeric ratings, for persons with specific mental and behavioral disorders. These mental disorders are limited to mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and psychotic disorders, and this chapter focuses on the evaluation of brain functioning and its effects on behavior in the absence of evident traumatic or disease-related objective central nervous system damage. This article poses and answers questions about the sixth edition. For example, this is the first since the second edition (1984) that provides a numeric impairment rating, and this edition establishes a standard, uniform template to translate human trauma or disease into a percentage of whole person impairment. Persons who conduct independent mental and behavioral evaluation using this chapter should be trained in psychiatry or psychology; other users should be experienced in psychiatric or psychological evaluations and should have expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of mental and behavioral disorders. The critical first step in determining a mental or behavioral impairment rating is to document the existence of a definitive diagnosis based on the current edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The article also enumerates the psychiatric disorders that are considered ratable in the sixth edition, addresses use of the sixth edition during independent medical evaluations, and answers additional questions.

Impairment Rating and Spinal Cord Injuries: Revisiting the Guides

2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Richard T. Katz
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Spinal Cord Injuries ◽  
Functional Independence ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Multiple Organ ◽  
Loss Of Function ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Organ Systems ◽  
Cord Injury ◽  
Impairment Ratings

Abstract This article addresses some criticisms of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) by comparing previously published outcome data from a group of complete spinal cord injury (SCI) persons with impairment ratings for a corresponding level of injury calculated using the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition. Results of the comparison show that impairment ratings using the sixth edition scale poorly with the level of impairments of activities of daily living (ADL) in SCI patients as assessed by the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) motor scale and the extended FIM motor scale. Because of the combinations of multiple impairments, the AMA Guides potentially overrates the impairment of paraplegics compared with that of quadriplegics. The use and applicability of the Combined Values formula should be further investigated, and complete loss of function of two upper extremities seems consistent with levels of quadriplegia using the SCI model. Some aspects of the AMA Guides contain inconsistencies. The concept of diminishing impairment values is not easily translated between specific losses of function per organ system and “overall” loss of ADLs involving multiple organ systems, and the notion of “catastrophic thresholds” involving multiple organ systems may support the understanding that variations in rating may exist in higher rating cases such as those that involve an SCI.

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Impairment Assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 8-13
Author(s):  
Steven D. Feinberg ◽  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome ◽  
Diagnostic Criteria ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Rule Out

Abstract Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is characterized by chronic spontaneous and/or evoked regional pain disproportionate in severity, distribution, and/or duration to that typically experienced after a similar injury or illness. The pain may also begin without a known precipitant. While various authors have questioned the validity of the diagnosis, physicians will be asked to perform impairment ratings on patients diagnosed with CRPS. Hence, it is important to understand the issues associated with this syndrome; the diagnostic criteria for it, including the need to rule out other diagnoses that may explain the patient's presentation; and how to rate CRPS. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, provides approaches to assessing CRPS impairment that are refined in the Sixth Edition.

The AMA Guides in Pennsylvania “Post-Protz”: Act 111 and Case Law Update

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 12-19
Author(s):  
Justin D. Beck ◽  
Judge David B. Torrey
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Disability Benefits ◽  
Permanent Disability ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Recent Edition ◽  
Impairment Ratings

Abstract Medical evaluators must understand the context for the impairment assessments they perform. This article exemplifies issues that arise based on the role of impairment ratings and what edition of the AMA Guides to the Impairment of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is used. This discussion also raises interesting legal questions related to retroactivity, applicability of prior precedent, and delegation. On June 20, 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down its decision, Protz v. WCAB (Derry Area Sch. Dist.), which disallows use of the “most recent edition” of the AMA Guides when determining partial disability entitlement under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. An attempted solution was passed by the Pennsylvania General Assembly and was signed into law Act 111 on October 24, 2018. Although it affirms that the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, must be used for impairment ratings, the law reduces the threshold for total disability benefits from 50% to 35% impairment. This legislative adjustment benefited injured workers but sparked additional litigation about whether, when, and how the adjustment should be applied (excerpts from the laws and decisions discussed by the authors are included at the end of the article). In using impairment as a threshold for permanent disability benefits, evaluators must distinguish between impairment and disability and determine an appropriate threshold; they also must be aware of the compensation and adjudication process and of the jurisdictions in which they practice.

A Historical Review of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in the “Guides Library”

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Robert J. Barth
Keyword(s):  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome ◽  
Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy ◽  
International Association ◽  
Historical Review ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Sixth Edition

Abstract Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a controversial, ambiguous, unreliable, and unvalidated concept that, for these very reasons, has been justifiably ignored in the “AMA Guides Library” that includes the AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), the AMA Guides Newsletter, and other publications in this suite. But because of the surge of CRPS-related medicolegal claims and the mission of the AMA Guides to assist those who adjudicate such claims, a discussion of CRPS is warranted, especially because of what some believe to be confusing recommendations regarding causation. In 1994, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) introduced a newly invented concept, CRPS, to replace the concepts of reflex sympathetic dystrophy (replaced by CRPS I) and causalgia (replaced by CRPS II). An article in the November/December 1997 issue of The Guides Newsletter introduced CRPS and presciently recommended that evaluators avoid the IASP protocol in favor of extensive differential diagnosis based on objective findings. A series of articles in The Guides Newsletter in 2006 extensively discussed the shortcomings of CRPS. The AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, notes that the inherent lack of injury-relatedness for the nonvalidated concept of CRPS creates a dilemma for impairment evaluators. Focusing on impairment evaluation and not on injury-relatedness would greatly simplify use of the AMA Guides.

Spine Impairment Evaluation: Sixth Edition Approaches

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Craig Uejo ◽  
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Functional Status ◽  
Spinal Injury ◽  
Current Medical ◽  
Clinical Testing ◽  
Medical Evidence ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Rating Process ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Class Assignment

Abstract Evaluators who use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, should understand the significant changes that have occurred (as well as the Clarifications and Corrections) in impairment ratings for disorders of the cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, and pelvis. The new methodology is an expansion of the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) method used in the fifth edition, but the criteria for defining impairment are revised, and the impairment value within a class is refined by information related to functional status, physical examination findings, and the results of clinical testing. Because current medical evidence does not support range-of-motion (ROM) measurements of the spine as a reliable indicator of specific pathology or permanent functional status, ROM is no longer used as a basis for defining impairment. The DRE method should standardize and simplify the rating process, improve validity, and provide a more uniform methodology. Table 1 shows examples of spinal injury impairment rating (according to region of the spine and category, with comments about the diagnosis and the resulting class assignment); Table 2 shows examples of spine impairment by region of the spine, class, diagnosis, and associated whole person impairment ratings form the sixth and fifth editions of the AMA Guides.

Commentary

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Richard T. Katz
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Behavioral Disorders ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Behavioral Disorder ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale ◽  
Psychiatric Rating ◽  
Psychiatric Rating Scale ◽  
Mental And Behavioral Disorders

Abstract The author, who is the editor of the Mental and Behavioral Disorders chapter of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, comments on the previous article, Assessing Mental and Behavioral Disorder Impairment: Overview of Sixth Edition Approaches in this issue of The Guides Newsletter. The new Mental and Behavioral Disorders (M&BD) chapter, like others in the AMA Guides, is a consensus opinion of many authors and thus reflects diverse points of view. Psychiatrists and psychologists continue to struggle with diagnostic taxonomies within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but anxiety, depression, and psychosis are three unequivocal areas of mental illness for which the sixth edition of the AMA Guides provides M&BD impairment rating. Two particular challenges faced the authors of the chapter: how could M&BD disorders be rated (and yet avoid an onslaught of attorney requests for an M&BD rating in conjunction with every physical impairment), and what should be the maximal impairment rating for a mental illness. The sixth edition uses three scales—the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, the Global Assessment of Function, and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale—after careful review of a wide variety of indices. The AMA Guides remains a work in progress, but the authors of the M&BD chapter have taken an important step toward providing a reasonable method for estimating impairment.

Peripheral Nerve and Brachial Plexus Impairment, AMA Guides, Sixth Edition

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 3-5
Author(s):  
James B. Talmage ◽  
Jay Blaisdell
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome ◽  
Lower Extremities ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Upper Extremities ◽  
Motor Deficits ◽  
Type I ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Nerve Entrapments

Abstract Physicians use a variety of methodologies within the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, to rate nerve injuries depending on the type of injury and location of the nerve. Traumatic injuries that cause impairment to the peripheral or brachial plexus nerves are rated using Section 15.4e, Peripheral Nerve and Brachial Plexus Impairment, for upper extremities and Section 16.4c, Peripheral Nerve Rating Process, for lower extremities. Verifiable nerve lesions that incite the symptoms of complex regional pain syndrome, type II (similar to the former concept of causalgia), also are rated in these sections. Nerve entrapments, which are not isolated traumatic events, are rated using the methodology in Section 15.4f, Entrapment Neuropathy. Type I complex regional pain syndrome is rated using Section 15.5, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome for upper extremities or Section 16.5, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome for lower extremities. The method for grading the sensory and motor deficits is analogous to the method described in previous editions of AMA Guides. Rating the permanent impairment of the peripheral nerves or brachial plexus is similar to the methodology used in the diagnosis-based impairment scheme with the exceptions that the physical examination grade modifier is never used to adjust the default rating and the names of individual nerves or plexus trunks, as opposed to the names of diagnoses, appear in the far left column of the rating grids.

Medical and Legal Issues Raised by the Protz Decision Issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 12-13
Author(s):  
LuAnn Haley ◽  
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Complex Concept ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
Recent Edition ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Pennsylvania adopted the impairment rating provisions described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in 1996 as an exposure cap for employers seeking predictability and cost control in workers’ compensation claims. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down the Protz decision, which held that requiring physicians to apply the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the AMA Guides reflected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the American Medical Association. The decision eliminates the impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) mechanism under which claimants were assigned an impairment rating under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides periodically are revised to include the most recent scientific evidence regarding impairment ratings, and the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, acknowledges that impairment is a complex concept that is not yet defined in a way that readily permits an evidence-based definition of assessment. The AMA Guides should not be considered standards frozen in time simply to withstand future scrutiny by the courts; instead, workers’ compensation acts could state that when a new edition of the AMA Guides is published, the legislature shall review and consider adopting the new edition. It appears unlikely that the Protz decision will be followed in other jurisdictions: Challenges to using the AMA Guides in assessing workers’ compensation claims have been attempted in three states, and all attempts failed.

Sixth Edition: the New Standard

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Robert D. Rondinelli ◽  
Elizabeth Genovese ◽  
Craig Uejo ◽  
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Classification Of Functioning ◽  
Revision Process ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Impairment Severity

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, was published in December 2007 and is the result of efforts to enhance the relevance of impairment ratings, improve internal consistency, promote precision, and simplify the rating process. The revision process was designed to address shortcomings and issues in previous editions and featured an open, well-defined, and tiered peer review process. The principles underlying the AMA Guides have not changed, but the sixth edition uses a modified conceptual framework based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), a comprehensive model of disablement developed by the World Health Organization. The ICF classifies domains that describe body functions and structures, activities, and participation; because an individual's functioning and disability occur in a context, the ICF includes a list of environmental factors to consider. The ICF classification uses five impairment classes that, in the sixth edition, were developed into diagnosis-based grids for each organ system. The grids use commonly accepted consensus-based criteria to classify most diagnoses into five classes of impairment severity (normal to very severe). A figure presents the structure of a typical diagnosis-based grid, which includes ranges of impairment ratings and greater clarity about choosing a discreet numerical value that reflects the impairment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document