Search for other papers by Seth A. Seabury in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Frank Neuhauser in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Teryl Nuckols in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) has been criticized because it was designed to measure the severity of impairment (loss of function of a body part) rather than disability (eg, inability to work), and the AMA Guides uses whole person impairment that accords higher priority to body regions that are deemed more important to functionality even though no objective evidence supports the relative importance of different body regions. This article reports on a study funded by the California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation (CHSWC) to address these concerns. The study found that the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, is an effective tool for ranking the effect of physical impairments on the ability to work; people with higher physical impairment ratings, measured using the AMA Guides, consistently had higher earnings losses. The authors conclude that ratings based on the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, probably are more accurate and consistent than ratings conducted under the previous system in California, the system used by the Veterans Administration, or systems used by Wisconsin and Florida in the 1960s. The authors also identified significant challenges to using ratings based on the AMA Guides to determine financial compensation, particularly across body regions, and some evidence suggests that the relationship between impairment ratings and losses was attenuated at higher ratings.
-
1.
Cocchiarella L, Andersson G, eds. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. 5th ed. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2001.
-
2.
Rondinelli R, ed. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. 6th ed. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2008.
-
3.
Fredrickson BE, Trief PM, VanBeveren P, Yuan HA, Baum G. Rehabilitation of the patient with chronic back pain. A search for outcome predictors. Spine. 1988;13(3):351–353.
-
4.
Milhous R, Haugh L, Frymoyer J, et al. Determinants of vocational disability in patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 1989;70(8):589.
-
5.
Sander RA, Meyers JE. The relationship of disability to compensation status in railroad workers. Spine 1986;11(2):141.
-
6.
Greenough C, Fraser R. The effects of compensation on recovery from low-back injury. Spine 1989;14(9):947.
-
7.
Rondinelli RD, Dunn W, Hassanein KM, et al. A simulation of hand impairments: effects on upper extremity function and implications toward medical impairment rating and disability determination. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 1997;78(12):1358–1363.
-
8.
Nattrass CL, Nitschke JE, Disler PB, Chou MJ, Ooi KT. Lumbar spine range of motion as a measure of physical and functional impairment: an investigation of validity. Clin Rehab 1999;13(3):211–218.
-
9.
Spieler EA, Barth PS, Burton JF, Himmelstein J, Rudolph L. Recommendations to guide revision of the Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. JAMA. 2000;283(4):519.
-
10.
Spieler EA. Congressional Testimony before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on Education and Labor of the U.S. House of Representatives: ‘Developments in State Workers' Compensation Systems: The Use of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.’ November 17, 2010. Written testimony available at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_house_hearings&docid=f:61993.pdf.
-
11.
Berkowitz M, Burton JF Jr. Permanent Disability Benefits in Workers' Compensation. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research; 1987.
-
12.
Reville RT, Seabury SA, Neuhauser F, et al. An Evaluation of California's Permanent Disability Rating System. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp; 2005.
-
13.
WorkCompCentral. Claimants Bar: AMA Guides Dead in N.Y. Newsline article published April 16, 2008.
-
14.
Mario Almaraz v Environmental Recovery Services. Case No. ADJ107816 en banc decision of California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, 2009.
-
15.
Seabury SA, Neuhauser F, Nuckols T. American Medical Association impairment ratings and earnings losses due to disability. J Occup Environ Med. 2013;55(3):286–291.
-
16.
Berkowitz M, Burton JF Jr., Permanent disability benefits in workers' compensation. W. E. Upjohn Insitute for Employment Research. Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1987.
-
17.
Reville RT. The impact of a permanently disabling workplace injury on labor force participation and earnings. In: Haltiwanger J, Lane J, Spletzer J, Theeuwes J, Troske K, eds. The Creation and Analysis of Linked Employer-Employee Data: Contributions to Economic Analysis. Amsterdam, London, and New York: Elsevier Science, North-Holland; 1999.
-
18.
Reville RT, Neuhauser FW, Bhattacharya J, Martin C. Comparing severity of impairment for different permanent upper extremity musculoskeletal injuries. J Occup Rehab. 2002;12(3):205–221.
-
19.
Boden LI, Galizzi M. Ecnomic consequences of workplace injuries and illnesses: Lost earnings and benefit adequacy. Am J Ind Med. 1999;36(5):487–503.
-
20.
Galizzi M, Boden LI. The return to work of injured workers: evidence from matched unemployment insurance and workers' compensation data. Lab Econ. 2003;10(3):311–337.
-
21.
Boden LI, Galizzi M. Income losses of women and men injured at work. J Hum Res. 2003;38(3):722.
-
22.
Bhattacharya J, Neuhauser F, Reville RT, Seabury SA. Evaluating permanent disability ratings using empirical data on earnings losses. J Risk Insur. 2010;77(1):231–260.
-
23.
Crichton S, Stillman S, Hyslop D. Returning to work from injury: longitudinal evidence on employment and earnings. Ind & Lab Rel Rev. 2011;64(4):7.
-
24.
Seabury S, Reville R, Williamson S, et al. Workers' Compensation Reform and Return to Work: The California Experience. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp; 2010.
-
25.
McGeary M, Ford MA, McCutchen SR, Barnes DK, eds. A 21st Century System for Evaluating Veterans for Disability Benefits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007.
-
26.
Boden LI, Reville RT, Biddle J. The adequacy of workers' compensation cash benefits. In: Roberts K, Burton JF Jr, Bodah M, eds. Workplace Injuries and Diseases: Prevention and Compensation. Essays in Honor of Terry Thomason. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research; 2005.
-
27.
Sinclair S, Burton JF Jr. Development of a Schedule for Compensation of Noneconomic Loss: Quality-of-Life Values vs. Clinical Impairment Ratings. Kingston, Ontario: IRC Press; 1995:123–140.
-
28.
Brigham C, Uejo C, McEntire A, Dilbeck L. Comparative analysis of AMA Guides ratings by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editions. Guides Newsletter. 2010;81(1).
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 890 | 890 | 103 |
| Full Text Views | 29 | 29 | 0 |
| PDF Downloads | 0 | 0 | 0 |
