Chapter 17: Spine and Pelvis

Author-Editors of the Musculoskeletal Chapters 15, 16, and 17 

Publication Date: September 12, 2024

J. Mark Melhorn, MD, FAAOS, FABOS, FACOEM, FACS, FAAHS, FASSH, FIAIME

Co-chair, AMA Guides Editorial Panel
Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, University of Kansas School of Medicine – Wichita
The Hand Center at Mid-America Orthopedics 
Wichita, KS

Barry Gelinas, MD, DC, FIAIME

Advisor, AMA Guides Editorial Panel
Edmonton, AB, Canada

Subcommittee Upper Limb (Authors)

Barry Gelinas, MD, DC, FIAIME
Advisor, AMA Guides Editorial Panel
Edmonton, AB, Canada

Eric A.K. Mayer MD
North American Spine Society (NASS)
Dell Medical School at the University of Texas
Texas Spine & Scoliosis
Austin, TX

Gary W. Pushkin MD, FAAOS, FIAIME
Cohen & Pushkin MD PA
Baltimore, MD

J. Mark Melhorn, MD, FAAOS, FABOS, FACOEM, FACS, FAAHS, FASSH, FIAIME
Co-chair, AMA Guides Editorial Panel
Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, University of Kansas School of Medicine – Wichita
The Hand Center at Mid-America Orthopedics
Wichita, KS

Les Kertay PhD, ABPP, FAIME
Ridgeside, TN

Noah Raizman, MD, MFA, FAAOS, FASSH
The Centers for Advanced Orthopaedics
Washington, DC

Steven P. Feinberg, MD, MS, MPH
Adjunct Clinical Professor
Stanford Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine Department
Stanford University - School of Medicine
Stanford, CA
 

Subcommittee Lower Limb (Authors)

Barry Gelinas, MD, DC, FIAIME
Advisor, AMA Guides Editorial Panel
Edmonton, AB, Canada

Christopher R. Brigham, MD
Hilton Head Island, SC

Charles F. Xeller MD, FIAIME
Houston, TX

Charles N. Brooks, MD
Bellevue, WA

Diana Kraemer, MD, FIAIME
Seattle, WA

Douglas W. Martin, MD, FACOEM, FAAFP, FIAIME
Co-chair, AMA Guides Editorial Panel
CNOS Occupational Medicine
Dakota Dunes, SD

J. Mark Melhorn, MD, FAAOS, FABOS, FACOEM, FACS, FAAHS, FASSH, FIAIME
Co-chair, AMA Guides Editorial Panel
Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, University of Kansas School of Medicine – Wichita
The Hand Center at Mid-America Orthopedics
Wichita, KS

James Underhill, PsyD, MP, FIAIME
Austin, TX

Naomi Shields, MD, FAAOS
Tru Ortho
San Antonio, TX

Subcommittee Spine & Pelvis (Authors)

Barry Gelinas, MD, DC, FIAIME
Advisor, AMA Guides Editorial Panel
Edmonton, AB, Canada

C. Timothy Floyd, MD
Boise, ID

David Bauer, MD
Orthopedic Independent Medical Exams
Richardson, TX

Eugene J Carragee, MD, FAAOS
Professor, Emeritus
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford, CA

Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach, MD, JD
Spine Care and Forensic Medicine, PLLC
Tucson, AZ

J. Mark Melhorn, MD, FAAOS, FABOS, FACOEM, FACS, FAAHS, FASSH, FIAIME
Co-chair, AMA Guides Editorial Panel
Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, University of Kansas School of Medicine – Wichita
The Hand Center at Mid-America Orthopedics
Wichita, KS

Patrick R. Luers MD
Loudon, TN

Randall D. Lea, MD, MPH
Navarre, FL

Subcommittee International

Charl Els, MBChB, FCPsych[SA], MMedPsych (cum laude), Dip.ABAM, MROCC, DESS, ACBOM, FIAIME
Assistant Registrar: Continuing Competence
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, CAN
(moderator)

Subcommittee PROMs

Dan Bruns, PsyD, FAPA
Health Psychology Associates
Greeley, CO
(moderator)

Alex Bruns, MS
Health Psychology Associates
Greeley, CO

Barry Nierenberg, PhD
College of Psychology, Nova Southeastern University
Miami, FL

Kathryn L. Mueller, MD, MPH
University of Colorado School of Medicine, APA and ACOEM
Aurora, CO

Maija Broox Bruzas, PhD
Health Psychology Associates
Greeley, CO

Stephen R. Gillaspy, PhD
American Psychological Association
Oklahoma City, OK

Ravi Prasad, PhD
University of California, Davis School of Medicine
Sacramento, CA

Robert L. Glueckauf, PhD
Dept. of Behavioral Sciences and Social Medicine
College of Medicine, Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL

AMA Guides Panel Members 2023 - 2024

Douglas W. Martin MD, FACOEM, FAAFP, FIAIME
Co-chair
CNOS Occupational Medicine
Dakota Dunes, SD

J. Mark Melhorn, MD, ,FAAOS, FABOS, FACOEM, FACS, FAAHS, FASSH FIAIME
Co-chair
Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, University of Kansas School of Medicine – Wichita
The Hand Center
Wichita, KS

Steven P. Feinberg, MD, MS, MPH
Adjunct Clinical Professor
Stanford Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine Department
Stanford University - School of Medicine
Stanford, CA

David Gloss, MD
Charleston Area Medical Center
Charleston, West Virginia

Rita Livingston, MD, MPH
Live-Well Medical Consultants, LLC
Savannah, Georgia

Idalia Massa-Carroll, PhD
Colorado Psychological Services
Arvada, Colorado

E. Kano Mayer, MD
Seton Spine & Scoliosis Center
Austin, Texas

Gayla Poling, PhD
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
Bethesda, Maryland

Jeffrey Keller, MD*
American College of Correctional Physicians
Idaho Falls, Idaho

Marilyn Price, MD
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts

Noah Raizman, MD
The Centers for Advanced Orthopaedics
Washington, District of Columbia

Michael Saffir, MD
Orthopaedic Specialty Group
Bethany, Connecticut

Robert Sataloff, MD
Drexel University College of Medicine
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Advisors to the AMA Guides Editorial Panel (2023 – 2024)

Hon. Shannon Bishop, JD*
Louisiana Office of Workers' Compensation
Harahan, Louisiana

Christopher R. Brigham, MD, MMS
Brigham and Associates, Inc.
Charleston, South Carolina

Barry Gelinas, MD, DC
International Academy of Independent Medical Evaluators
Edmonton, Alberta

Abbie Hudgens, MPA*
Tennessee Bureau of Workers' Compensation
Nashville, Tennessee

Les Kertay, PhD, ABPP
Axiom Medical Consulting, LLC
Chattanooga, Tennessee

Hon. David Langham, JD
Florida Compensation Claims
Tallahassee, Florida

Robert Snyder, MD 
Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
Nashville, TN 

* Former member, who was active during 2024 content creation
Former Panel Members (2019 – 2022) 

Helene Fearon, PT
Fearon Physical Therapy, Inc.
Phoenix, Arizona

Robert Goldberg, DO
Beth Israel Hospital & Medical Center
New York, New York

Lylas Mogk, MD
Henry Ford Health System
Detroit, Michigan

Jan Towers, PhD, RN
Frederick Community Health Care for Homeless Clinic and Federally Qualified Health Center
Biglerville, Pennsylvania

Contributors (Reviewers)

For transparency, accountability and acknowledgement of contributions, reviewer’s names and affiliations are listed below in alphabetical order.

Alexis Rojas, PhD
University of Florida College of Medicine
Jacksonville, FL

Amy Lemley, JD
Foulston Siefkin LLP
Wichita, KS

Annette S. Kluck, PhD
The University of Mississippi
Oxford, MS

Arjena Valis Palacios Reese, MS
Nova Southeastern University
Miami, FL

Arthur E. Rhodes, MD
Devaughn James Injury Lawyers
Wichita, KS

Azadeh Farokhi, MD, MPH, MOH
Washington State Labor & Industries
Tumwater, WA

Barbara Ward-Zimmerman, PhD
Society for Health Psychology
Glastonbury, CT

Barry Gelinas, MD, DC
Advisor, AMA Guides Editorial Panel
Edmonton, CA

Behrooz Broukhim, MD
North Hollywood, CA

Ben Young, MD
Mid-American Orthopedics
Wichita, KS

Bill Townsley II, JD
Flesson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch LLI
Wichita, KS

Brian Filips, JD
James H. Brown & Associates
Edmonton, Alberta, CAN

Brian S. Wilson, DC, MHA
Director of Medical and Health Services Research, Office of Chief Medical Officer
Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation
Columbus, OH

Bruce Boyer, BA Psy
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA

Christopher R. Brigham, MD, MMS
Brigham and Associates, Inc.
Charleston, South Carolina

Chris Wong, MD
Orthopaedic Associates of South Broward
Hollywood, CA

Christopher Kauffman, MD
North American Spine Society
Nashville, TN

Clifford K H Lau, MD, FAAOS
Honolulu, HI

D’anna Sydow, MS
Nova Southeastern University
Miami, FL

David Huculak, JD
James H. Brown & Associates
Edmonton, Alberta, CAN

David Hufford, MD
Mid-America Orthopedics 
Wichita, KS

David Linklater, MD
WCB Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, CAN

Descatha Alexis, MD, PhD
Univ Angers Inserm/CHU Angers/Hofstra Northwell
Angers, France

Dong-Sik Park, MD
Korean Academy of Independent Medical Examiners
Seoul, South Korea

Doug Shepherd, MD
Utah Labor Commission Industrial Accidents
Layton, UT

Charl Els, MBChB, FCPsych[SA], MMedPsych(cum laude), Dip.ABAM, MROCC, DESS, ACBOM, FIAIME
Assistant Registrar: Continuing Competence
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, CAN

Edward D. Heath Jr, JD
Law Office of Edward D. Heath, Jr.
Wichita, KS

Emily Jayne Ross, PhD
University of Miami Miller School of Medicine
Miami, FL

Geert Lammens, MD
Geert Lammens Medische Expertises
Ghent, Belgium

Glenn Pfefer MD, FAAOS
Professor Cedars-Sinai, Orthopaedics
Los Angeles, CA

Harold Hoffman, MD
Occupational Medicine, University of Alberta 
Edmonton, Alberta, CAN

Harvey Hanel
North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance
Bismarck, ND

Ian Blair Fries, MD
Bone, Spine & Hand Surgery, Chartered
Brick, NJ

Jennifer H. Christian, MD, MPH
Alliance for Bridging Health & Work
Wayland, MA

Jessica Flori, PhD
University of Connecticut School of Medicine
Farmington, CT

John Babb, MS
Mid-America Orthopedics 
Wichita, KS

John Hopkins, MD, PhD
Preventative Medicine Research Center
Dallas, TX

Jolene F. Rohde 
North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance
Bismarck, ND

Jon Morgan, DPM
Mid-America Orthopedics
Wichita, KS

Jonathan Voegeli, JD
Slape & Howard, Chtd
Wichita, KS

Jorgia Wilson, MS
Nova Southeastern University
Fort Lauderdale, FL

Joshua Paredes, BS
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL

Hon. Bruce Moore, JD
Kansas Department of Labor
Division of Workers Compensation
Salina, KS

Julia M. Iannucci, PsyD
Nova Southeastern University
Miami, FL

Justin Strickland, MD
Mid-America Orthopedics
Wichita, KS

Kara Jackson Schroeder, MS
Nova Southeastern University
Miami, FL

Kelly Griffin, MA, MS
Nova Southeastern University
Fort Lauderdale, FL

Lawrence T. Donovan, DO
Naples, FL

Lora L. Black, PhD, MPH
The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center
Columbus, OH

Mark S. Williams
The Hartford
Portland, ME

Maryana Kravtsenyuk, MD, MSc, FRCPC
University of Toronto, University of Alberta
Northern Ontario School of Medicine
Toronto, ON, CAN

Merita Ismajli Marku, MD
Skopje, North Macedonia

Michel Daigle, MD, FAAOS, FRCS, AOQ, ASSH
St-Bruno, QC, CAN

Michael Snyder, JD
Snider & Seiwert, LLC Law Firm
Wichita, KS

Michelle M. Langer, PhD
Northwestern University
Chicago, IL

Morgan Young, DC
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries 
Tacoma, WA

Nan E. Rothrock, PhD
Northwestern University
Chicago, IL

Nina Lucas, MD, CCFP
Halifax, Nova Scotia, CAN

Noelle Mastrili, PhD
Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science
North Chicago, IL

Olivia L. Campbell, PsyD
Spalding University, School of Professional Psychology
Louisville, KY

Pat Do, MD
Mid-America Orthopedics 
Wichita, KS

Patrick A. Turner, JD
Devaughn James Injury Lawyers 
Wichita, KS

Phil Slape, JD
Slape & Howard, Chtd.
Wichita, KS

Philo F. Willetts, Jr., MD
Westerly, RI

Quentin Durand-Moreau, MD, Med
University of Alberta – Division of Preventative Medicine
Edmonton, Alberta, CAN

Raymond Earl Peeples Jr., MD 
Peeples Medical Legal Consulting LLC
Little Rock, AK

Richard Strain, MD
Broward Health Medical Center
Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Ron Wilcox, DC 
Morgan Young Washington
Tumwater, WA

Ryan W. Livermore, MD
Mid-America Orthopedics 
Wichita, KS

Sang-Gu Lee, MD
Naeun Hospital Spine Center
Korean Academy of Independent Medical Examiners
Seoul, South Korea

Scott S. Porter, PhD
Saible Neuropsychology, LLC
Petersburg, FL

Sebastian Straube, BM BcH, MA (Oxon), DPhil
University of Alberta, Department of Medicine
Edmonton, Alberta, CAN

Shawn Uraine, MD
IAIME
Loma Linda, CA

Stanley G. Andeell, JD
Foulston Siefkin LLP
Wichita, KS

Steven Howell, MD
Kansas Orthopaedic Center
Wichita, KS

Sydney Black, PsyD
Spalding University, School of Professional Psychology, St Elizabeth Physicians 
Louisville, KY

Talaib Rajwani, MD, PhD
Edmonton, Alberta, CAN

Tarun Bhargava, MD
Mid-America Orthopedics 
Wichita, KS

Timothy E. Doerr, MD
Idaho Medical Exams
Eagle, ID

Tom Mayer, MD
Pride 
Dallas, TX

Victoria Cho, MD
WCB Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, CAN

William J. Sullivan, MD
Aurora, CO

X. J. Ethan Moses, MD, MPH, FACOEM
Colorado Division of Worker’s Compensation
Denver, CO

William Messamore, MD
Kansas Orthopaedic Center
Wichita, KS

Provided Public Comments
Abby Cheng
Adi Renbaum
Amanda Trimpey
American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R)
American Psychological Association
Ashley Maleki
Benjamin Eric Kaplan
Bill Gallagher
Brian M Shelley
Brian Shelley
Caswell Nkuna
Catherine Jeakle Hill
Chaim Rogozinski
Chris Patton
Chris Stewart
Christopher John Standaert
Dan Bruns
David Bauer
Diana Kraemer
Dorian Kenleigh
Elaine Leighton
Emmy Ho
Ernst van den Doel
Eva Pacheco
Frank Salvi
Geert Pieter Lammens
Glen Seidman
Glen Seidman
James B. Talmage (TBWC)
James L. Williams (IAIME)
Jeffrey Scott
Jim Steihl
Joanne Willer
John Hopkins
Jolene Rohde
Jonathan Dunne
Josh Kerr
Kavitha Moturi
Keith L. Blankenship
Kevin Park
Leslie Narramore
Maria Buscemi
Martha Luevano
Matthew Gold
Michael Hisey
Millie Suk 
Mohammad Eman
Pam Vanderbilt
Patrick Luers
Patti Vaughn
Prakash Jayabalan
Rahul Bhala
Rebecca Bowen
Richard Rozenswiag 
Rick Wickstrom
Salim Esmail
Sarah Cartagena
Stephen Mandel
Steve Johnson
Tiffany Knowlton
Timothy R Lubenow MD
Tom Stanley
Travis Colt
Vikki Stefans
William Brady
William F Hefley, Jr
William Gallagher

Registered Attendees for Public Web Access
Barrie Ross
Barry Markman
Bill Gallagher
Brian M Shelley
Cary Ginter
Chris Voegele
David Bauer
David Hufford
DC Schainholz
Diana Kraemer
Eva Pacheco
Gary Pushkin
James Underhill
John Hopkins
Jolene Rohde
Kathryn Mueller
Manijeh Berenji
Matthew Gold
Naomi Shields
Sanjeev Batra
Sarah White
Tsun Ming Cheng

Non-Registered Attendees for Public Web Access
The panel extends its gratitude to all individuals and organizations who provided comments during the public access period as non-registered attendees.
 

• 17.01 Introduction
  • 17.01a Guidelines for Conducting an Impairment Assessment
  • 17.01b Diagnosis-Based Impairment Goals
  • 17.01c Diagnosis-Based Impairment Linked to Confirmed and Clinically Relevant Diagnosis
  • 17.01d Criteria for Confirming a Clinically Relevant Diagnosis
  • 17.01e Key Factors
  • 17.01f Impairment Principles
  • 17.01g Impairment Overview Summary
  • 17.01h The Determination of Impairment Is Not Contingent Upon the Type of Surgery Performed
  • 17f.01i Impairment Overview Details
    • 17.01i1 Understanding the Differences Between Impairment and Disability: A Medical and Legal Perspective
  • 17.01j Maximum Medical Improvement
    • 17.01j1 MMI When Individual Declines Treatment
  • 17.01k Spinal Impact on Dominant Limb
  • 17.01l Impairment Scenarios
  • 17.01m International Classification of Diseases
  • 17.01n International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health
  • 17.01o The Guides’ Focus on Impairment
• 17.02 Chapter Format
  • 17.02a Sections
  • 17.02b Tables
  • 17.02c Diagnostic Rows
  • 17.02d Diagnostic Row, Class, and Grade Label
  • 17.02e Figures
  • 17.02f Vignettes
• 17.03 Principles of Assessment
  • 17.03a Diagnosis-Based Impairment Method
    • 17.03a1 Diagnostic Patterns in the Spine
    • 17.03a2 Diagnostic Terms and Considerations in Spine and Pelvis
  • 17.03b DBI Impairment Class
  • 17.03c Definition of DBI Impairment Classes
  • 17.03d DBI Impairment Value Range by Class
  • 17.03e DBI Impairment Value Range by Grade
  • 17.03f DBI Table Index
• 17.04 Diagnosis
  • 17.04a Interpretation of Symptoms and Signs
  • 17.04b Natural History of the Disease (Diagnosis)
  • 17.04c Spectrum of Disease
  • 17.04d Spine and/or Pelvis Diseases of Senescence (Aging)
    • 17.04d1 Prepathogenic Period
    • 17.04d2 Latency Period
    • 17.04d3 Clinical Period: Three Stages
    • 17.04d4 Spine and/or Pelvis Diseases of Senescence: Example
    • 17.04d5 Understanding the Natural History of the Condition
• 17.05 Physical Examination (PE)
  • 17.05a Physical Examination for Underlying Disease
  • 17.05b Cross-Validation on Physical Examination
  • 17.05c Selected Biases in Judgment or Reasoning on Physical Examination
  • 17.05d Illness Behavior on Physical Examination
  • 17.05e Subjective, Objective, or Both on Physical Examination
  • 17.05f Assessment of Assistive Devices or Prosthesis
  • 17.05g Examples of Physical Examination Assessment Methods
    • 17.05g01 Inspection
    • 17.05g02 Palpation and Provocative Maneuvers
    • 17.05g03 Range of Motion
    • 17.05g04 Sensory
    • 17.05g05 Sensibility
    • 17.05g06 Reflexes
    • 17.05g07 Motor (Muscle Strength)
    • 17.05g07a Motor Weakness
  • 17.05g08 Motor (Muscle Strength) and Reported Pain
  • 17.05g09 Clinical Provocative Testing
    • 17.05g09a Spurling Neural Tension Test
    • 17.05g09b Femoral Nerve Stretch Neural Tension Test
    • 17.05g09c Straight Leg Raise Neural Tension Test
  • 17.05g10 Anatomic Measurement (Atrophy of Arm/Forearm or Thigh/Calf or Limb Length Discrepancy)
  • 17.05g11 Nonorganic Findings or Yellow Flags on Physical Examination
  • 17.05g12 Interpretation of Waddell's Signs
  • 17.05g13 Specific Physical Examination of Radiculopathy
  • 17.05g14 Radicular Complaints That Do Not Meet SIEs Radiculopathy Criteria
  • 17.05g15 Nonverifiable Radicular Complaints
    • 17.05g15a Neck (Cervical) Pain and Low Back Pain (LBP) Labeled as Nonverifiable Radicular Complaints
    • 17.05g15b Guides Fourth Edition 1993 Nonverifiable Radicular Complaints
    • 17.05g15c Guides Fifth Edition 2001 Nonverifiable Radicular Complaints
    • 17.05g15d Guides Sixth Edition 2008 Nonverifiable Radicular Complaints
    • 17.05g15e Guides Sixth Edition 2024 Nonverifiable Radicular Complaints
• 17.06 Clinical Studies (CS)
  • 17.06a Natural Aging-Related Changes and Clinical Studies
  • 17.06b Cross-Validation of Clinical Studies
  • 17.06c Radiographs (X rays)
  • 17.06d Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies
  • 17.06e Electrodiagnostic Studies
  • 17.06f Electrodiagnostic Verification of Lumbosacral Plexopathy
  • 17.06g Lumbosacral Plexus Imaging Studies
• 17.07 Clinical History (CH), History of the Present Disease, and Current Clinical Presentation
  • 17.07a Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
    • 17.07a1 Symptom Diagram or Body Map
  • 17.07b The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)
  • 17.07c Interpretation of Clinical History
    • 17.07c1 Reconciling Inconsistencies
  • 17.07d Misattribution of Symptoms
  • 17.07e Clinical History as a Specific Individual Element
    • 17.07e1 Levels of Functional Loss
  • 17.07f Incongruent Functional Loss
    • 17.07f1 Definition of Pain
  • 17.07g Functional Loss—Chapter 14 Cross-Reference
    • 17.07g1 Additional Reading: Pain
  • 17.07h Functional Loss—Chapter 3 Cross-Reference
  • 17.07i Cross-Validation—Functional Loss
    • 17.07i1 Additional Reading: Functional Loss
  • 17.07j Depression and Anxiety
    • 17.07j1 Additional Reading: Depression and Anxiety
  • 17.07k Self-Reported Functional Loss
  • 17.07l Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)
  • 17.07m fPROMs—Analysis of Strengths and Weaknesses
  • 17.07n Incorporating Functional Loss
    • 17.07n1 Application of Spine Functional Loss
    • 17.07n2 Application of Spine Functional Loss
    • 17.07n3 Application of Limb and Spine Functional Loss
    • 17.07n4 Application of No Outcome Tool Measurement
  • 17.07o Mechanism of Injury (MOI) and Clinical History
  • 17.07p Incongruent Mechanism of Injury (MOI)
• 17.08 DBI Assignment of Class by Diagnostic Row
• 17.09 DBI Class Range Overview
  • 17.09a Class 0
  • 17.09b Class 1 to 4
• 17.10 Specific Individual Elements (SIEs)
  • 17.10a Formatting the Three Components (CH, PE, CS) Within the DBI Tables
  • 17.10b Within a Component (CH, PE, CS) Within the DBI Tables
    • 17.10b1 Examples of the Format for SIE Group:
• 17.11 Specific Individual Elements (SIEs) Grade
  • 17.11a Grade A
  • 17.11b Grade B
  • 17.11c Grade C
  • 17.11d Additional Grades
• 17.12 Findings Incongruent With the Natural History of the Condition
  • 17.12a Application of Findings Incongruent With the Natural History of the Condition
  • 17.12b Description of Findings Incongruent With the Natural History of the Condition
    • 17.12b1 Additional Reading: Incongruent Findings
  • 17.12c Once-in-a-Lifetime 1% Impairment
    • 17.12c1 Upper Limb Digit Once-in-a-Lifetime 1% Impairment
    • 17.12c2 Upper Limb Once-in-a-Lifetime 1% Impairment
    • 17.12c3 Lower Limb Digit Once-in-a-Lifetime 1% Impairment
    • 17.12c4 Lower Limb Once-in-a-Lifetime 1% Impairment
    • 17.12c5 Spine Once-in-a-Lifetime 1% Impairment
  • 17.12d Bilateral Limbs Once-in-a-Lifetime 1% Upper Limb or Lower Limb Impairment
  • 17.12e Upper Limb, Lower Limb, Spine Once-in-a-Lifetime 1% Impairment
  • 17.12f Review of Previous Once-in-a-Lifetime 1% Impairment
• 17.13 Comprehensive Guide to the Steps Involved in Performing an Impairment Rating
  • 17.13a Spine or Pelvis Impairment Rating Steps Summary
  • 17.13b Details of Rating Steps for Spine or Pelvis Impairment
    • 17.13b1 Step 1. Confirm a Clinically Relevant Diagnosis (DX)
    • 17.13b2 Step 2. Confirm Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI)
    • 17.13b3 Step 3. Identify the Relevant Diagnosis-Based Impairment (DBI) Table
    • 17.13b4 Step 4. Determine the Diagnostic Row, Class, Grade, and Impairment Value
    • 17.13b5 Step 5. How to Document Impairment Determination in the Report
• 17.14 Combining Impairment for Spine and Pelvis
  • 17.14a Combine and Converting Principles for Spine and Pelvis
    • 17.14a1 Combining and Converting Principles for Spine
  • 17.14b Combining and Converting Principles for Pelvis
  • 17.14c Incongruent Clinical Presentation and Consideration of Spine and Pelvis Impairment
  • 17.14g Resolving Conflicts Between Different Editions or Versions
  • 17.14h Regional Limb Impairment for Radiculopathy
• 17.15 Causation and Apportionment
  • 17.15a Causation
  • 17.15b Apportionment
• 17.16 Maximum Whole Person Impairment Values
  • 17.16a Cervical Spine
  • 17.16b Thoracic Spine
  • 17.16c Lumbar Spine
• 17.17 Terms and Abbreviations Used Throughout The Musculoskeletal Chapters
  • 17.17a Terms
  • 17.17b Abbreviations
  • 17.17c Operational Definitions: Impairment, Disability, Handicap, Section 1.3d, Sixth Edition 2008
  • 17.17d Common Provocative Tests for the Musculoskeletal Chapters
• 17.18 Introduction to the DBI Tables
  • 17.18a Brachial Plexus Impairment
  • 17.18b Lumbosacral Plexus Impairment
• 17.19 Cervical Spine Impairment
  • DBI Table 17-19 Cervical Spine Impairment
    • DBI Table 17-19 Cervical Spine Impairment
    • The steps to performing an impairment rating for the Cervical Spine Impairment
    • 17-19a Cervical Spine Diagnostic Row, Class, and Grade
    • 17-19b Instructions for Cervical Spine
    • Summary of Possible Impairment Combinations for Cervical Spine Based on the SIEs in DBI Table 17-19 Cervical Spine Impairment
  • 17-19-00 Confirmed Diagnosis Corroborated by the Clinical History (Presentation) With No Residual Symptoms
  • 17-19-01 Incongruent Clinical Presentation With Residual Symptoms
  • 17-19-02 Incongruent Clinical Presentation With Residual Symptoms (Nonspecific Pain)
  • 17-19-03 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C3 Nerve Root
  • 17-19-04 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C4 Nerve Root
  • 17-19-05 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C5 Nerve Root
  • 17-19-06 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C6 Nerve Root
  • 17-19-07 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C7 Nerve Root
  • 17-19-08 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C8 Nerve Root
  • 17-19-09 Cervical Spinal Fracture C1 or C2
  • 17-19-10 Cervical Spinal Fracture C3 to C7
  • 17-19-11 Cervical AOMSI Associated With Fusion
  • 17-19-12 Cervical AOMSI Associated With Instability
• 17.20 Thoracic Spine Impairment
  • DBI Table 17-20 Thoracic Spine Impairment
    • DBI Table 17-20 Thoracic Spine Impairment
    • The steps to performing an impairment rating for the Thoracic Spine Impairment
    • 17-20a Thoracic Spine Diagnostic Row, Class, and Grade
    • 17-20b Instructions for Thoracic Spine
    • Summary of Possible Impairment Combinations for Thoracic Spine Based on the SIEs in DBI Table 17-20 Thoracic Spine Impairment
  • 17-20-00 Confirmed Diagnosis Corroborated by the Clinical History (Presentation) With No Residual Symptoms
  • 17-20-01 Incongruent Clinical Presentation With Residual Symptoms
  • 17-20-02 Incongruent Clinical Presentation With Residual Symptoms (Nonspecific Pain)
  • 17-20-03 Thoracic Radiculopathy Involving the T1 Nerve Root
  • 17-20-04 Thoracic Radiculopathy Involving the T2-T12 Nerve Roots
  • 17-20-05 Thoracic Spinal Fracture
  • 17-20-06 Thoracic AOMSI Associated With Fusion
  • 17-20-07 Thoracic AOMSI Associated With Instability
• 17.21 Lumbar Spine Impairment
  • DBI Table 17-21 Lumbar Spine Impairment
    • DBI Table 17-21 Lumbar Spine Impairment
    • The steps to performing an impairment rating for the Lumbar Spine Syndrome Impairment
    • 17-21a Lumbar Spine Diagnostic Row, Class, and Grade
    • 17-21b Instructions for Lumbar Spine
    • Summary of Possible Impairment Combinations for Lumbar Spine Based on the SIEs in DBI Table 17-21 Lumbar Spine Impairment
  • 17-21-00 Confirmed Diagnosis Corroborated by the Clinical History (Presentation) With No Residual Symptoms
  • 17-21-01 Incongruent Clinical Presentation With Residual Symptoms
  • 17-21-02 Incongruent Clinical Presentation With Residual Symptoms (Nonspecific Pain)
  • 17-21-03 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L2 Nerve Root
  • 17-21-04 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L3 Nerve Root
  • 17-21-05 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L4 Nerve Root
  • 17-21-06 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L5 Nerve Root
  • 17-21-07 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the S1 Nerve Root
  • 17-21-08 Lumbar Spinal Fracture
  • 17-21-09 Lumbar Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication
  • 17-21-10 Lumbar AOMSI Associated With Fusion
  • 17-21-11 Lumbar AOMSI Associated With Instability
• 17.22 Pelvis Impairment
  • DBI Table 17-22 Pelvis Impairment
    • DBI Table 17-22 Pelvis Impairment
    • The steps to performing an impairment rating for the Pelvis Impairment
    • 17-22a Pelvis Diagnostic Row, Class, and Grade
    • 17-22b Instructions for Pelvis
  • 17-22-00 Confirmed Diagnosis Corroborated by the Clinical History (Presentation) With No Residual Symptoms
  • 17-22-01 Incongruent Clinical Presentation with Residual Symptoms
  • 17-22-02 Incongruent Clinical Presentation With Residual Symptoms (Nonspecific Pain)
  • 17-22-03 Fractures of the Pubic Rami (symphysis)
  • 17-22-04 Fractures of the Ilium, Ischium, Sacrum, or Coccyx
  • 17-22-05 Sacroiliac Joint Injury, Transverse Sacral Fracture, or Spinopelvic Dislocation
  • 17-22-06 Fracture of the Acetabulum
  • 17-22-07 Pelvic Fracture With Leg Length Loss
• 17.23 Nerve Root Evaluation
  • 17.23b Maximum Medical Improvement for a Nerve Root Injury
  • 17.23c Clinical Assessment of Sensory and Motor Loss
    • 17.23c1 Sensory Loss (Deficits)
    • 17.23c2 Motor Loss (Deficits)
    • 17.23c3 Motor Loss Patterns
  • 17.23d Traditional Sensory and Motor Assessment
• 17.27 Pain
  • 17.27l Understanding Pain
    • 17.27l1 Chapter 3 and Chronic Pain Concepts in the AMA Guides 6th Edition 2008
    • 17.27l2 Neuropathic Pain Update
    • 17.27l3 Nociplastic Pain
    • 17.27l4 Section 3.3b AMA Guides Sixth Edition 2008
    • 17.27l5 Section 3.3c AMA Guides Sixth Edition 2008
    • 17.27l6 Section 3.4 AMA Guides Sixth Edition 2008
  • 17.27m Additional Reading
• 17.28 Multiple Trauma, Complex Injury, or Mutilating Injuries
• 17.29 Summary
• 17.31 Appendix
  • 17.31a List of Vignettes for Chapter 17 Spine
  • 17v01 Cervical Strain/Strain
  • 17v02 Intervertebral Disk Herniation or AOMSI at a Single Level (Cervical)
    • 17-19-06 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C6 Nerve Root
  • 17v03 Intervertebral Disk Herniation or AOMSI at a Single Level (Cervical)
    • 17-19-06 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C6 Nerve Root
    • 17-19-11 Cervical AOMSI Associated With Fusion
  • 17v04 Intervertebral Disk Herniation or AOMSI at a Single Level (Cervical)
    • 17-19-08 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C8 Nerve Root
  • 17v05 Intervertebral Disk Herniations and AOMSI at Multiple Levels (Cervical)
    • 17-19-06 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C6 Nerve Root
    • 17-19-11 Cervical AOMSI Associated With Fusion
  • 17v06 Vertebral Fractures at Multiple Levels (Cervical)
    • 17-19-06 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C6 Nerve Root
    • 17-19-07 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C7 Nerve Root
    • 17-19-10 Cervical Spinal Fracture C3 to C7
    • 17-19-11 Cervical AOMSI Associated With Fusion
  • 17v07 Thoracic Strain/Strain
  • 17v08 Intervertebral Disk Herniation or AOMSI at One or More Levels (Thoracic)
    • 17-20-04 Thoracic Radiculopathy Involving the T2-T12 Nerve Roots
  • 17v09 Vertebral Fractures at Multiple Levels (Thoracic)
    • 17-20-04 Thoracic Radiculopathy Involving the T2-T12 Nerve Roots
    • 17-20-05 Thoracic Spinal Fracture (for T7 at 40%)
    • 17-20-05 Thoracic Spinal Fracture (for T8 at 60%)
  • 17v10 Lumbar Strain/Strain
    • 17-21-00 Accurate Diagnosis Corroborated by the Clinical History (Presentation) With No Residual Symptoms
  • 17v11 Intervertebral Disk Herniation at a Single Level (Lumbar)
    • 17-21-00 Accurate Diagnosis Corroborated by the Clinical History (Presentation) With No Residual Symptoms
  • 17v12 Recurrent Low Back Pain Without Objective Findings
    • 17-21-02 Incongruent Clinical Presentation With Residual Symptoms (Nonspecific Pain)
  • 17v13 Intervertebral Disk Herniation or AOMSI at a Single Level (Lumbar)
    • 17-21-06 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L5 Nerve Root
  • 17v14 Intervertebral Disk Herniation or AOMSI at a Single Level (Lumbar)
    • 17-21-06 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L5 Nerve Root
    • 17-21-10 Lumbar AOMSI Associated With Fusion
  • 17v15 Intervertebral Disk Herniation or AOMSI at Multiple Levels (Lumbar)
    • 17-21-07 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the S1 Nerve Root (Left)
    • 17-21-10 Lumbar AOMSI Associated With Fusion
  • 17v16 Lumbar Spinal Stenosis at Multiple Levels
    • 17-21-06 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L5 Nerve Root (Bilateral)
    • 17-21-09 Lumbar Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication
  • 17v17 Ischiopubic Stress Fracture
    • 17-22-03 Fractures of the Pubic Rami (symphysis)
  • 17v18 Traumatic Separation of the Symphysis Pubis
    • 17-22-03 Fractures of the Pubic Rami (symphysis)
  • 17v19 Complex Pelvic Ring Fracture Dislocation
    • 17-22-04 Fractures of the Ilium, Ischium, Sacrum, or Coccyx
  • 17v20 Bilateral L4 Radiculopathy with Fracture
    • 17-21-05 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L4 Nerve Root (Right)
    • 17-21-05 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L4 Nerve Root (Left)
    • 17-21-08 Lumbar Spinal Fracture
  • 17v21 Spinal Stenosis With Back Pain Only (Resolved)
    • 17-21-00 Accurate Diagnosis Corroborated by the Clinical History (Presentation) With No Residual Symptoms
  • 17v22 Spinal Stenosis With Back Pain Only (Residual Symptoms – Single Level Neurogenic Claudication)
    • 17-21-09 Lumbar Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication
  • 17v23 Spinal Stenosis With Radiculopathy L5
    • 17-21-06 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L5 Nerve Root (Right)
  • 17v24 Spinal Stenosis With Radiculopathy L5 Apportionment
    • 17-21-06 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L5 Nerve Root
    • 17-21-09 Lumbar Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication
  • 17v25 Spinal Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication Multiple Levels
    • 17-21-09 Lumbar Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication
  • 17v26 Lumbar Sprain/Strain With Complex History
    • 17-21-00 Accurate Diagnosis Corroborated by the Clinical History (Presentation) With No Residual Symptoms
  • 17v27 Recurrent L5 Radiculopathy
    • 17-21-06 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L5 Nerve Root
  • 17v28 Spinal Stenosis With Radiculopathy L5 With Bladder Dysfunction
    • 17-21-06 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L5 Nerve Root
    • Chapter 13 Table 13-5H (2023) Neurogenic Bladder
  • 17v29 Spinal Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication Multiple Levels and Bladder Dysfunction
    • 17-21-09 Lumbar Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication
    • Chapter 13 (2023) Table 13-5H Neurogenic Bladder
  • 17.31b Spine and Pelvis Impairment Evaluation Record Template
  • 17.30 References AMA Guides 2024 Spine and Pelvis
  • Bibliography AMA Guides 2008 Spine and Pelvis
  • Waddell's Signs
  • Pain
  • Functional Loss
  • Depression and Anxiety
  • Incongruent Findings
  • Nociplastic Pain
  • Pain

• DBI Table 17-19 Cervical Spine Impairment
  • 17-19-00 Confirmed Diagnosis Corroborated by the Clinical History (Presentation) With No Residual Symptoms
  • 17-19-01 Incongruent Clinical Presentation With Residual Symptoms
  • 17-19-02 Incongruent Clinical Presentation With Residual Symptoms (Nonspecific Pain)
  • 17-19-03 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C3 Nerve Root
  • 17-19-04 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C4 Nerve Root
  • 17-19-05 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C5 Nerve Root
  • 17-19-06 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C6 Nerve Root
  • 17-19-07 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C7 Nerve Root
  • 17-19-08 Cervical Radiculopathy Involving the C8 Nerve Root
  • 17-19-09 Cervical Spinal Fracture C1 or C2
  • 17-19-10 Cervical Spinal Fracture C3 to C7
  • 17-19-11 Cervical AOMSI Associated With Fusion
  • 17-19-12 Cervical AOMSI Associated With Instability
  •  
• DBI Table 17-20 Thoracic Spine Impairment
  • 17-20-00 Confirmed Diagnosis Corroborated by the Clinical History (Presentation) With No Residual Symptoms
  • 17-20-01 Incongruent Clinical Presentation With Residual Symptoms
  • 17-20-02 Incongruent Clinical Presentation With Residual Symptoms (Nonspecific Pain)
  • 17-20-03 Thoracic Radiculopathy Involving the T1 Nerve Root
  • 17-20-04 Thoracic Radiculopathy Involving the T2-T12 Nerve Roots
  • 17-20-05 Thoracic Spinal Fracture
  • 17-20-06 Thoracic AOMSI Associated With Fusion
  • 17-20-07 Thoracic AOMSI Associated With Instability
  •  
• DBI Table 17-21 Lumbar Spine Impairment
  • 17-21-00 Confirmed Diagnosis Corroborated by the Clinical History (Presentation) With No Residual Symptoms
  • 17-21-01 Incongruent Clinical Presentation With Residual Symptoms
  • 17-21-02 Incongruent Clinical Presentation With Residual Symptoms (Nonspecific Pain)
  • 17-21-03 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L2 Nerve Root
  • 17-21-04 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L3 Nerve Root
  • 17-21-05 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L4 Nerve Root
  • 17-21-06 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the L5 Nerve Root
  • 17-21-07 Lumbar Radiculopathy Involving the S1 Nerve Root
  • 17-21-08 Lumbar Spinal Fracture
  • 17-21-09 Lumbar Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication
  • 17-21-10 Lumbar AOMSI Associated With Fusion
  • 17-21-11 Lumbar AOMSI Associated With Instability
  •  
• DBI Table 17-22 Pelvis Impairment
  • 17-22-00 Confirmed Diagnosis Corroborated by the Clinical History (Presentation) With No Residual Symptoms
  • 17-22-01 Incongruent Clinical Presentation with Residual Symptoms
  • 17-22-02 Incongruent Clinical Presentation With Residual Symptoms (Nonspecific Pain)
  • 17-22-03 Fractures of the Pubic Rami (symphysis)
  • 17-22-04 Fractures of the Ilium, Ischium, Sacrum, or Coccyx
  • 17-22-05 Sacroiliac Joint Injury, Transverse Sacral Fracture, or Spinopelvic Dislocation
  • 17-22-06 Fracture of the Acetabulum
  • 17-22-07 Pelvic Fracture With Leg Length Loss

• Cervical Spine Impairment
• • Radiculopathy
  • Fracture
  • AOMSI
     
• Thoracic Spine Impairment
  • Radiculopathy
  • Fracture
  •  AOMSI
     
• Lumbar Spine Impairment
  • Radiculopathy
  • Fracture
  • Stenosis
  • AOMSI
     
• Pelvis Impairment

What’s New for 2024

Evaluators familiar with the 2008 guides will notice significant changes in the latest update. The grade modifiers have been replaced to address the feedback from multiple stakeholders, who found that these modifiers introduced an undesirable bias, reducing the fairness and equity of impairment values across various jurisdictions. Specifically, the grade modifiers, which used terms like mild, moderate, or severe, lacked clear specificity and resulted in wide ranges of impairment values for similar functional losses. This issue led to reduced interrater and intrarater reliability, and a decline in accuracy, consistency, and reproducibility.

In place of the grade modifiers, the 2024 edition introduces specific individual elements (SIEs) of the clinical history, physical examination, and relevant clinical studies. Additionally, key elements have been replaced with specific diagnostic rows in the Diagnosis-Based Impairment (DBI) Tables, leading to more fair and equitable impairment values.

Evaluators are already familiar with the criteria in the diagnostic row, which are based on the traditional three components: clinical history, physical examination, and relevant clinical studies. As a result, all evaluators possess the skills necessary to match the objectively verified anatomical findings to the criteria in each diagnostic row.

• The SIEs for clinical history include current clinical presentation, mechanism of injury, reported functional loss, functional outcome surveys, the impact of no treatment, appropriate treatment, or inappropriate treatment, and any preexisting impairments, diseases, conditions, illnesses, comorbidities, psychosocial factors, and considerations for the natural history of the diagnosis.
• For physical examination, the SIEs cover traditional assessments such as appearance, sensory function, motor strength, and vascular supply.
• The SIEs for relevant clinical studies include radiographs, MRI, CT scans, nerve studies, vascular studies, and laboratory tests.

By using specific individual elements (SIEs), evaluators can apply objectively verifiable criteria to confirm appropriate impairment values based on the ICF (International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health) classes defined in the diagnostic rows. This approach ensures that impairment values are fair and equitable, accurately reflecting the individual’s condition at the time of maximum medical improvement and the improvements provided by treatments.
The diagnostic rows list the necessary SIEs to determine the impairment value, enhancing the quality of impairment rating reports. Evaluators can now document the diagnosis and the SIEs present at maximum medical improvement (MMI) to determine the impairment. This method allows for easier review by both professional and non-professional evaluators, ensuring consistency and fairness across multiple jurisdictions.

What’s New for Diagnoses

The Diagnosis-Based Impairment (DBI) tables have been expanded to encompass a wider range of diagnoses, including new conditions, treatments, and medical advancements that were unavailable in 2008. This update ensures that the DBI tables are more comprehensive and up-to-date, allowing evaluators to consider a wider range of conditions and their respective treatments. As a result, impairment ratings are more accurate and reflective of current medical practices, improving the overall fairness and reliability of impairment evaluations.

Consistency
All three musculoskeletal chapters follow the same format and approach to the DBI Tables. Sections and Tables are specifically numbered to facilitate easy identification of the diagnostic row in the evaluator's report, establishing the specific individual elements of the clinical history (CH), physical examination (PE), and relevant clinical studies (CS) used to match the diagnostic row criteria.

The DBI Tables include specific instructions to minimize the need to reference multiple sections or tables, eliminating the need to use grade modifier tables and reduces the need to "flip back and forth in the book” during an impairment evaluation. This streamlines the process, reduces errors, and improves the accuracy of impairment ratings. Clear guidance for adding or combining impairment values at different level is often incorporated into the DBI Tables.

Vignettes
The 2008 vignettes have been updated to align with the 2024 method, reducing the need for additional training and enhancing reliability and consistency. Furthermore, new vignettes featuring complex clinical presentations (real-world examples) have been added to illustrate the 2024 method.

Getting Started
While the evaluator is encouraged to thoroughly read the entire chapter, valuable insights and detailed explanations are provided to support the instructions in the DBI Tables. This comprehensive review ensures a deep understanding of the methodology and the rationale behind the updated approach, facilitating a more accurate and consistent application of the impairment evaluation process. Familiarity with the entire chapter will enhance the evaluator's ability to effectively use the DBI Tables and apply the 2024 method to a wide range of clinical scenarios.
 

Preface to the Musculoskeletal Chapters 15, 16, and 17

For over 50 years, the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) have been the trusted source for physicians, patients, and regulators, providing fair, equitable, and consistent impairment rating guidance and tools. The aim of the AMA Guides is to offer an authoritative and equitable framework for impairment ratings, ensuring that all parties receive accurate and unbiased evaluations.

In June 2019, the AMA established the AMA Guides Editorial Panel (Guides Panel) to create a transparent process involving a broad spectrum of professionals to determine whether, when, and how the Guides should be revised. The Guides Panel periodically publishes a set of editorial priorities to inform the broader stakeholder community of the panel’s primary focus. Relevant stakeholders are invited to develop proposals for enhancements to the AMA Guides based on advances in medical science.

In response to stakeholder requests, the Guides Panel created a musculoskeletal subcommittee in August 2022 to address the three musculoskeletal chapters: upper limb, lower limb, and spine and pelvis. The subcommittee engaged professional healthcare organizations to contribute materials and expertise to these chapters.

The musculoskeletal subcommittee subsequently developed three primary goals:

1. Revise the evaluation method and steps for conducting an impairment rating.
2. Enhance the diagnosis-based impairment tables by incorporating specific individual elements of the clinical history, physical examination, and relevant clinical studies.
3. Assess the impact to stakeholders in transitioning from the 2008 to the 2024 methodology.

These goals aim to improve the accuracy and consistency of impairment ratings, ensuring they reflect current medical knowledge and practices.
To achieve these goals, the Guides Panel appointed J. Mark Melhorn, MD, and Barry Gelinas, MD, DC, as the musculoskeletal chapter author-editors. The musculoskeletal editors developed five subcommittees for the upper limb, lower limb, spine and pelvis, PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System), and international contributors. These subcommittees worked collaboratively to ensure the comprehensive and accurate revision of the musculoskeletal chapters.

The musculoskeletal author-editors started with the Guides 2008 as the foundation. Materials were updated and provided to the subcommittees. Routine interactions with the subcommittees, contributors, and public comments were completed using the current best science applied to the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (Delphi) at each step in Figure 1 and Figure 2. This approach establishes a foundation for future updates.
 
Understanding and evaluating impairment is an ongoing process, especially as medical science progresses at an exponential rate. A study in 2011 estimated that the doubling time of medical knowledge was 50 years in 1950, 7 years in 1980, and 3.5 years in 2010. By 2020, it was projected to be just 73 days. This means that what medical students learn in their first 3 years will constitute only 6% of what is known a decade later.1

Another perspective on this challenge is provided by a 2021 article, which forecasted that in the next 100 years, we will experience 20,000 years' worth of progress.2 

To incorporate the latest scientific advancements and ensure transparency in the development process, the Guides Panel has adopted several enhancements to the 2024 AMA Guides for the musculoskeletal chapters (Chapter 15 Upper Limb, Chapter 16 Lower Limb, and Chapter 17 Spine and Pelvis). 

On behalf of the Guides Panel, we would like to thank the panel members, the five musculoskeletal subcommittees, contributors and reviewers, those who provided public comments, web access attendees, and the AMA Guides staff for their support in this update.
 

Douglas W. Martin, MD, FACOEM, FAAFP, FIAIME
Co-chair, AMA Guides Editorial Panel
CNOS Occupational Medicine
Dakota Dunes, SD

J. Mark Melhorn, MD, FAAOS, FABOS, FACOEM, FACS, FAAHS, FASSH FIAIME,
Co-chair, AMA Guides Editorial Panel
Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, University of Kansas School of Medicine – Wichita
The Hand Center at Mid-America Orthopedics
Wichita, KS
 

Introduction to the Musculoskeletal Chapters 15, 16, and 17

The 2024 musculoskeletal chapters offer a valid and reproducible framework for evaluating functional deficits, utilizing the latest evidence-based science and incorporating recent scientific and medical advancements.

A musculoskeletal impairment rating at maximum medical improvement (MMI) is based on a confirmed and clinically relevant diagnosis (DX) and the impact of this diagnosis on the individual's functional abilities. Confirmation of the DX is based upon professional knowledge, judgment, and experience. At the time of the ratings evaluation, the DX is confirmed using the traditional three components of clinical history (CH), physical examination (PE), and relevant clinical studies (CS). The three components of a DX are based on objectively verified anatomic and/or physiological findings that are consistent with the natural history of the condition. The natural history of the condition is sometimes referred to as the natural history of the injury or disease and refers to the progression of a disease process in an individual over time after taking into consideration any natural aging-related changes; the impact of no treatment, appropriate treatment, or inappropriate treatment; and any preexisting impairment, diseases, conditions, illnesses, comorbidities, and/or psychosocial factors.

Evidence-Based Approach

One of the few constants in life and healthcare is change. The science of impairment evaluation has advanced significantly, with a strong emphasis on evidence-based approaches. This focus ensures that impairment assessments are grounded in the latest research and best practices, leading to more accurate, consistent, and reliable evaluations.¹

With advancement comes change.

1.  We acknowledge that people and organizations often resist change due to a preference for the familiar and a fear of the unknown. This phenomenon is known as inertia. Established routines and methods provide a sense of stability and predictability, making the prospect of change unsettling.
2.  A second concern can be that new methods usually require learning and training.
3. Finally, resource allocation is necessary to implement changes.2

Despite the challenges, transitioning to the AMA Guides 2024 evidence-based approach, which utilizes the current best science in impairment evaluation, is essential for improving accuracy, consistency, reliability, and fairness, while also enhancing ease of use. Consequently, the benefits far outweigh the difficulties, leading to more accurate impairment ratings and greater credibility in the field.

In 2023, the musculoskeletal author-editors, with the support of the Guides Panel, undertook a research study to better understand the impact of transitioning from the 2008 to the 2024 updated methodology and to address the first two concerns listed above. Using clinical data from the 2008 vignettes, an analysis comparing the 2008 and 2024 methodologies was conducted. The study reported several conclusions:
1. The 2024 method reduced the time required to complete the evaluation, thereby enhancing ease of use and reducing learning or training time.
2. Impairment value accuracy was improved, resulting in fairer and more equitable evaluations.
3. Consistency, reliability, and reproducibility were enhanced, improving both interrater and intrarater performance.

The full details of the study are available at Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.3 

A second study was designed to address the third concern of resource allocation. In the realm of impairment values, resource allocation encompasses two aspects: the cost of training and the impact on financial awards. The first study indicated that training costs should be reduced with the 2024 edition. The financial awards cost relates to any potential changes in impairment values based on diagnosis. This study compared all 31 upper limb clinical vignettes from 2008 and repeated the ratings using the 2024 updated methodology and enhanced diagnosis-based impairment tables. The study reported several conclusions:

1.    The two expert evaluators obtained the same impairment value 100% of the time across two separate evaluations, demonstrating intrarater and interrater reliability.
2.    Six digit impairment vignettes provided the following averages: 10.8% digital impairment using 2008, and 11.0% digital impairment using 2024.
3.    For the 31 upper limb impairment vignettes, the average using 2008 was 14.19%; using 2024, 14.23%.
4.    When the 31 upper limb impairment values were converted to whole person, the whole person impairment (WPI) values where then averaged using 2008, resulting in 8.52% WPI; using 2024, 8.65% WPI.
5.    When 6 digit impairment values, 8 hand impairment values, 31 upper limb impairment values, and the 31 whole person impairment values were average, 2008 yielded 11.0% and 2024 yielded 11.1% (composite whole person impairment).

The final conclusion above suggests that the transition from the 2008 to the 2024 methodology will result in no significant change in financial awards if strictly based on impairment values. Impairment ratings and impairment rating reports produced using the AMA Guides are used extensively in the United States and internationally as critical inputs for determining fair compensation for individuals with work-related injuries. Importantly, the determination of appropriate compensation falls within the jurisdiction of state governments, not physicians. As such, the impairment rating provided by a physician is often only one input into a complex disability and compensation calculation.
It is crucial to understand that the AMA Guides address impairment rather than disability. Impairment refers to the loss of function due to a medical condition, as assessed by medical professionals using the Guides. In contrast, disability encompasses the broader impact of an impairment on an individual’s ability to perform work and daily activities. Disability determination falls under the purview of the appropriate jurisdictional entity, such as state or federal agencies, which may incorporate additional factors beyond medical impairment when deciding on the final financial award.

On behalf of the Guides Panel, we would like to thank the panel members, the five musculoskeletal subcommittees, contributors and reviewers, those who provided public comments, web access attendees, and the AMA Guides staff for their support in this update as listed in the Acknowledgments Section.

J. Mark Melhorn, MD, FAAOS, FABOS, FACOEM, FACS, FAAHS, FASSH FIAIME,
Author-Editor Musculoskeletal Chapters
Co-Chair, AMA Guides Editorial Panel
Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, University of Kansas School of Medicine – Wichita
The Hand Center at Mid-America Orthopedics
Wichita, KS

Barry Gelinas, MD, DC, FIAIME
Author-Editor Musculoskeletal Chapters
Advisor, AMA Guides Editorial Panel
Edmonton, AB, Canada

References
1.    Buckwalter, JA. Advances in the Diagnosis and Evaluation of Disabling Physical Health Conditions, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2023. 
2.     Hiatt, Jeff & Hiatt, Jeffrey. (2006). ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government and Our Community.
3.    Melhorn JM, Gelinas B, Martin DW, Hegmann KT, Thiese MS. Advancements in AMA Guides Musculoskeletal Impairment Evaluations: Improved Reliability and Ease of Use. J Occup Environ Med. Published online May 10, 2024.