Examinee-Reported History Is Not a Credible Basis for Clinical or Administrative Decision Making

Accurate, unbiased impairment ratings must follow the procedures and processes defined in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). This Case Example from California in 2010 illustrates some problems that result from rating a lumbar injury as if it were an inguinal hernia. At critical issue in this case is whether sufficient clinical findings were available to support a rating for lumbar radiculopathy; the evaluating (and also, treating) physician gave the patient the benefit of doubt with a rating of “nonverifiable radicular (nerve root) pain” but did not address the patient's ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs). The State of California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed on August 20, 2010, that the State relies on the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, to determine impairment. WCAB noted that “medical opinion that departs unreasonably from a strict application of the [AMA] Guides can be challenged, and it would not be acceptable as substantial evidence.” In the present case, the rating provided by the evaluating physician was based on an obviously inapplicable section of the AMA Guides and is not appropriate. Evaluators must use the procedures defined in the AMA Guides, perform evaluations according to the standards in the AMA Guides, and do so without bias.

Case Example: Spinal Impairment: California Case

Brigham¹,

Talmage²,

Eskay-Auerbach³

et al. 2011

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

Patterson¹,

Barth²,

Brigham³

et al. 2012

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.

Evaluating Causation for the Opposite Upper Limb

Melhorn¹,

Talmage²,

Brooks³

et al. 2012

Workers’ compensation and personal injury claims often become embroiled in debates about the cause of the clinical presentation. When the primary claim involves an extremity, affected individuals sometimes report subsequent symptoms in the contralateral, previously “normal” limb and often attribute its onset to overuse while favoring the initially involved extremity; such an overuse hypothesis seems plausible, and perhaps intuitively obvious, to some. The concept that favoring one upper limb can result in injury to or illness in the other is not based on scientific evidence and instead is an unsupportable myth. Determining relationships between risk factors or exposures and medical conditions is a complex process that is outlined in the Guides to the Evaluation of Disease and Injury Causation (Causation). A search on PubMed and MEDLARS using the key phrases “opposite uninjured arm” and “uninjured arm” returned only six relevant articles, and the authors report that claims of serious or persisting painful syndromes in the arm or hand opposite the injured one are seldom adequately supported by clinical evidence. Similarly, the literature does not support “favoring” as a reasonable cause for development of symptoms in the contralateral shoulder or elbow. Epidemiological studies can provide general information regarding risk; this information must be filtered by specific steps to assess causal association for a disorder and determine if the injury is work related. Findings then can be applied to the specific individual.