Pulmonary Impairment Rating
Jay Blaisdell
Search for other papers by Jay Blaisdell in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
James B. Talmage
Search for other papers by James B. Talmage in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Stephen Demeter
Search for other papers by Stephen Demeter in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

Nonspecific spinal pain and intervertebral disc herniations are common, and in evaluating spinal impairment physicians should carefully assess the significance of imaging findings, physical examination findings, and reports of limb pain. A case example illustrates key principles in assessing cervical pain in an individual with questionable arm complaints. A 62-year-old man had a slip and fall injury. Imaging studies revealed degenerative disc disease with disc bulges and without specific disc herniations according to the radiologists, but his physician reviewed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) films and reported multiple disc herniations. The case example illustrates the significance of the finding of degenerative disc disease, determining whether to rate for “soft tissue and nonspecific conditions” or “motion segment lesions,” and assessing “nonverifiable radicular complaints.” The authors note that cervical degenerative disc “disease” is more aptly a radiologic diagnosis reflecting aging rather than a clinical syndrome and does not necessarily imply that the degenerative disc disease is the cause of the pain. To distinguish between nonverifiable radicular complaints without objective evidence of radiculopathy and unreliable vague complaints involving the extremity, evaluators should determine that the complaints are consistently and repetitively recognized in medical records and that they lie in the distribution of a single nerve root that the examiner can name. The diagnosis of “intervertebral disc herniation” cannot be made, and instead the “nonspecific chronic pain” diagnosis can be used. Nor can the diagnosis of alteration of motion segment integrity be used because the case lacks radiographically documented instability.

  • 1.

    Rondinelli RD, Genovese E, Brigham CR, et al.Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 6th ed. Chicago: AMA Press; 2008.

  • 2.

    Brusasco V, Crapo R, Veigi G, et al.General considerations for lung function testing. Europ Resp J. 2005; 21: 153661 (web).

  • 3.

    Brusasco V, Crapo R, Veigi G, et al.Standardization of lung spirometry. Europ Resp J. 2005; 26: 31038 (web)

  • 4.

    Pellegrino R, Veigi G, Brusasco V, et al.Interpretative strategies for lung function tests. Europ Resp J. 2005; 26:948968.

  • 5.

    2012 NIOSH Spirometry Quality Assurance: Common Errors and Their Impact on Test Results. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2012-116/pdfs/2012-116.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Asthma Care Quick Reference: Diagnosing and Managing Asthma. Estimated Comparative Daily Doses: Inhaled Corticosteroids for Long–Term Asthma Control. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/current/asthma-guidelines/quick-reference-html#estimated-comparative-daily-doses.

  • 7.

    Demeter SL. Pulmonary impairment. In: Demeter SL, Andersson GBJ, eds. Disability Evaluation. Philadelphia and Chicago: W.B. Saunders and American Medical Association, 2003; pp. 361384.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Colice GL. Comparing inhaled corticosteroids. Respir Care. 2000; 45:846885.

  • 1.

    Wasserman K, Hansen JE, Sue DY, Whipp BJ, eds. Principles of Exercise Testing and Interpretation. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger; 1987.

  • 2.

    US Department of Health and Human Services. Work Practices Guide for Manual Lifting. Cincinnati: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1981. NIOSH Technical Report 81-122.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 81 81 45
Full Text Views 21 21 0
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
Save