Search Results
You are looking at 71 - 78 of 78 items for
- Author or Editor: Charles N Brooks x
- Refine by Access: All content x
Abstract
The normal cervical spine is straight in the coronal plane and usually is lordotic (curved convex anteriorly) in the sagittal plane, and although cervical spine deformity occurs in the coronal plane (eg, scoliosis), sagittal plane deformities are more common. For example, cervical lordosis can be increased (hyperlordosis) within the normal range, decreased (hypolordosis), absent (a straight cervical spine with 0° of curvature on a lateral X ray), or reversed (kyphosis). Primary deformity of the cervical spine often is congenital (eg, wedge vertebra); secondary sagittal deformities may be due to disc degeneration accompanying aging, disease such as ankylosing spondylitis, or surgery (eg, for postlaminectomy kyphosis). Decreased, straightened, or reversed cervical lordosis (DSRCL) may be idiopathic and can be voluntary, and evaluators must differentiate DSRCL that does not change over time vs sagittal plane alignment that varies over time or with a change in posture or position. DSRCL usually is asymptomatic, but severe cervical kyphosis can cause neck pain, myelopathy, dysphagia, loss of horizontal gaze, and other symptoms that are sufficiently severe to result in disability and to require surgical correction. Reports of DSRCL due to spasm, particularly at times temporally remote to an injury, should be met with extreme skepticism. Kyphosis of sufficient severity to be symptomatic usually is a postoperative deformity, not an effect of whiplash.
Abstract
The rotator cuff comprises four muscles and their tendons, the supraspinatus, infraspinatus, teres minor, and subscapularis. Rotator cuff tears (RCTs) are common and most frequently involve the supraspinatus, and usually occur through tendon rather than muscle. Clinical manifestations vary depending on the size and age of the tear, the individual's physical demands, psychosocial factors, and other variables; tears may range from the asymptomatic to large, full-thickness, and retracted tears that cause pain, weakness, and at least partial disability. Individuals involved in rear-end motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) may complain of “shoulder” pain, and magnetic resonance imaging may reveal the presence of shoulder cuff tears, high-energy trauma can cause rotator cuff tears, but the tensile forces encountered in rear-end MVCs almost certainly do not cause rotator cuff tears de novo. Because rear-end collisions and RCTs are common and often involve claims or lawsuits, physicians may be asked to assess the causation of the RCTs. Treatment should be based on clinical findings and not the results of imaging; the same applies to causation analysis: Involvement in a rear-end MVC does not establish causality for a rotator cuff tear. The medical literature is devoid of evidence indicating that rear-end collisions cause RCTs, but compelling evidence in the biomechanical literature shows that low-speed rear-end MVCs do not cause RCTs.
Abstract
The author of the two-part article about evaluating reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) responds to criticisms that a percentage impairment score may not adequately reflect the disability of an individual with RSD. The author highlights the importance of recognizing the difference between impairment and disability in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides): impairment is the loss, loss of use, or derangement of any body part, system, or function; disability is a decrease in or the loss or absence of the capacity to meet personal, social, or occupational demands or to meet statutory or regulatory requirements because of an impairment. The disparity between impairment and disability can be encountered in diverse clinical scenarios. For example, a person's ability to resume occupational activities following a major cardiac event depends on medical, social, and psychological factors, but nonmedical factors appear to present the greatest impediment and many persons do not resume work despite significant improvements in functional capacity. A key requirement according to the AMA Guides is objective documentation, and the author agrees that when physicians consider the disability evaluation of people, more issues than those relating to the percentage loss of function should be considered. More study of the relationships among impairment, disability, and quality of life in patients with RSD are required.
Abstract
In order to answer questions posed by their clients, evaluating physicians must understand the context of a case or jurisdiction, in part because medical and legal perspectives may differ when an evaluator assesses issues such as causation and apportionment. A condition is not necessarily a ratable impairment, nor do symptomatic conditions necessarily prevent an individual from working. Attorneys may pose very specific apportionment questions based on laws unique to a given jurisdiction; for example, a patient may have an occupational injury or illness that results in impairment, but causation of the impairment may be multifactorial and may involve, for example, age-related degeneration, a pre-existing injury or illness, an occupational injury or illness, and/or subsequent trauma or disease. In some states, the presence of a pre-existing condition when an employee is injured may involve Second Injury Funds that were created to relieve a portion of the employer's/insurer's claim costs when the employer hired or retained an employee with a pre-existing medical condition who then suffered a “second” injury. The latter situation requires more extensive treatment and/or a greater disability due to the combined effects of both conditions. Apportionment of causation and impairment may be complex, requiring evaluation of nonoccupational and occupational risk factors and the natural history of the underlying condition.
Abstract
Causation analysis involves determining what conditions are related to a compensable injury or illness; apportionment is the allocation of responsibility among two or more probable causes; and assessing impairment is based on the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). These three are separate activities, but sometimes all three must be addressed in a single evaluation and may be required for a specified jurisdiction (eg, California). Evaluators thus must ask if jurisdictional issues dictate or influence the approach to causation and apportionment; which edition of the AMA Guides to use; and how to approach causation and apportionment in the present case example: A 63-year-old woman with rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus is assessed by an orthopedic surgeon who is the agreed medical evaluator (AME). In addition to her pre-existing rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, the individual also had Sjogren's syndrome, osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, left carpal tunnel syndrome, osteopenia, and obesity. She has undergone multiple surgical procedures, and treatment for her collagen vascular disease includes leflunomide (immunosuppressant), hydroxychloroquine, and prednisone. In this case, impairments were not the result of “cumulative trauma” but rather were secondary to underlying chronic inflammatory disease, and her occupational permanent impairment rating accordingly would be zero.
