7 “By the Numbers”: Workers’ Compensation and the (Further) Conventionalization of Workplace Violence

Abstract This article describes special aspects of addressing and defining substantial medical evidence, causation, and apportionment in the California Workers' Compensation system. Substantial medical evidence is framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, and the opinion must be based on fact and not be speculative. The issue of whether the injury occurred in the course of employment is left to the Trier of Fact (WCAB judge). The issue of arising out of employment is a medical issue left to the physician. Apportionment applies to both the industrial and nonindustrial cause of the disability.

Download Full-text

Use of the AMA Guides in State Workers' Compensation Systems: 2009 Update

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2009.marapr02 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 14 (2) ◽

pp. 13-16

Author(s):

Christopher R. Brigham ◽

Jenny Walker

Keyword(s):

New York ◽

North Carolina ◽

South Carolina ◽

South Dakota ◽

Rhode Island ◽

Workers Compensation ◽

Fourth Edition ◽

Sixth Edition ◽

Specific Guideline ◽

Compensation Systems

Abstract The AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is the most widely used basis for determining impairment and is used in state workers’ compensation systems, federal systems, automobile casualty, and personal injury, as well as by the majority of state workers’ compensation jurisdictions. Two tables summarize the edition of the AMA Guides used and provide information by state. The fifth edition (2000) is the most commonly used edition: California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont, and Washington. Eleven states use the sixth edition (2007): Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Eight states still commonly make use of the fourth edition (1993): Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Two states use the Third Edition, Revised (1990): Colorado and Oregon. Connecticut does not stipulate which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Six states use their own state specific guidelines (Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), and six states do not specify a specific guideline (Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia). Statutes may or may not specify which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Some states use their own guidelines for specific problems and use the Guides for other issues.

Download Full-text

State-by-State Use of AMA Guides

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2019.sepoct01 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 24 (5) ◽

pp. 3-7, 16

Keyword(s):

Expert Testimony ◽

Narrow Range ◽

The United States ◽

Workers Compensation ◽

Federal Employees ◽

Permanent Disability ◽

Sixth Edition ◽

History Of ◽

Canadian Provinces

Abstract This article presents a history of the origins and development of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), from the publication of an article titled “A Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment of the Extremities and Back” (1958) until a compendium of thirteen guides was published in book form in 1971. The most recent, sixth edition, appeared in 2008. Over time, the AMA Guides has been widely used by US states for workers’ compensation and also by the Federal Employees Compensation Act, the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as well as by Canadian provinces and other jurisdictions around the world. In the United States, almost twenty states have developed some form of their own impairment rating system, but some have a narrow range and scope and advise evaluators to consult the AMA Guides for a final determination of permanent disability. An evaluator's impairment evaluation report should clearly document the rater's review of prior medical and treatment records, clinical evaluation, analysis of the findings, and a discussion of how the final impairment rating was calculated. The resulting report is the rating physician's expert testimony to help adjudicate the claim. A table shows the edition of the AMA Guides used in each state and the enabling statute/code, with comments.

Download Full-text

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

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2017.julaug03 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Impairment Tutorial: Rating Facial Disfigurement After an Injury

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.1998.julaug04 ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 3 (4) ◽

pp. 6-6

Author(s):

Marc T. Taylor

Keyword(s):

Current Work ◽

Workers Compensation ◽

Loss Of Function ◽

Facial Disfigurement ◽

Work Related ◽

Work Related Injury ◽

Compensation Claim ◽

Impairment Ratings

Abstract This article discusses two important cases that involve the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). First, in Vargas v Industrial Com’n of Arizona, a claimant had a pre-existing non–work-related injury to his right knee as well as a work-related injury, and the issue was apportionment of the pre-existing injury. The court held that, under Arizona's statute, the impairment from the pre-existing injury should be subtracted from the current work-related impairment. In the second case, Colorado courts addressed the issue of apportionment in a workers’ compensation claim in which the pre-existing injury was asymptomatic at the time of the work-related injury (Askey v Industrial Claim Appeals Office). In this case, the court held that the worker's benefits should not be reduced to account for an asymptomatic pre-existing condition that could not be rated accurately using the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides bases impairment ratings on anatomic or physiologic loss of function, and if an examinee presents with two or more sequential injuries and calculable impairments, the AMA Guides can be used to apportion between pre-existing and subsequent impairments. Courts often use the AMA Guides to decide statutorily determined benefits and are subject to interpretation by courts and administrative bodies whose interpretations may vary from state to state.

Download Full-text