Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 10 of 43 items for
- Author or Editor: Craig Uejo x
- Refine by Access: All content x
Abstract
Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), the most common peripheral entrapment neuropathy, is caused by compression of the median nerve at the wrist, and annual costs of CTS treatment in the United States total $2 billion. Although CTS often is attributed to repetitive motions at work, recent reports have questioned the relationship of CTS and occupational activities. This article reviews recent publications and provides insights into the causation of this common problem. Despite ergonomic workplace modifications aimed at reducing perceived risk factors, rates of imputedly work-related musculoskeletal disorders such as CTS have not decreased during the past ten years. One study found a prevalence of electrodiagnostically confirmed CTS of 3.5% in frequent computer users, but the authors also note that affected and unaffected employees had similar occupations, years using a computer, and usage rates. Another group concluded that computer use does not pose a severe occupational hazard for developing symptoms of CTS. Recent publications have suggested other risk factors such as age, obesity, hand dominance, reduced physical fitness, lifetime alcohol intake, and smoking; others have correlated weight and body mass index with prolonged median nerve latency. A relatively small number of jobs may be associated with CTS, primarily those that involve high force and repetition. The etiology of CTS usually is multifactorial, and risk factors include genetics, age, female sex, and obesity; its relationship with occupational injury is questioned.
Abstract
Some injuries to the extremities can be associated with multiple injuries or diagnoses, and, in such cases, evaluators should recall that the functional history adjustment can be considered only for the single highest rated condition. This Case Example illustrates the proper rating methodology using the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition section on The Upper Extremities. A 58-year-old male automotive mechanic fell at work on an oil-slickened floor and landed directly on his left outstretched hand and wrist, as well as the lateral part of his left elbow. At maximum medical improvement (MMI), the individual complained of moderate pain at rest and severe pain with repetitive forceful gripping and grasping. Radiographs taken at MMI showed a healed distal radius fracture in anatomic position with no posttraumatic arthritis and no carpal instability. The AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, allows use of only one of two methodologies: the Diagnosis-based impairment (DBI) methodology or the range-of-motion (ROM) method. Because ROM findings at the left elbow and wrist were recorded as normal and because the greater impairment that is causally related to the injury is used to rate the impairment, the DBI methodology is appropriate here. Only a single diagnosis is rated per region, and a case that involves more than a single region in the same extremity can be rated for separate impairments based on the separate regional conditions or diagnoses.
Abstract
A 2005 Benefits Review Board decision by the US Department of Labor, Peter J. Desjardins vs Bath Iron Works Corporation affirmed a decision and order (2004-LHC-1364) regarding the utility of impairment rating critique. The administrative law judge credited the rating opinion of an expert physician reviewer (who had not seen the claimant) over that of the treating physician. The claimant's physician was awarded 20% upper extremity impairment, but, following the review and opinion of an expert reviewer, the award was reduced to 4%. The claimant appealed, largely on the argument that the expert reviewer had reviewed the report by the patient's physician, not the claimant himself and that the expert's opinion properly relied on the correct use of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). The appeals judges noted that the administrative judge properly noted that the AMA Guides was suitable for use (and was the basis of the treating physician's award). The administrative law judge found that the expert reviewer's opinion was based on the specifics of the present case and on his knowledge and application of the AMA Guides, which together warranted determinative weight, based on the expert reviewer's credentials, experience, and well-reasoned opinion. This decision confirms that expert reviewers can provide evidence for the fact finder to evaluate the treating physician's opinion to determine if it is well reasoned and documented.
Abstract
In the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, distal clavicle resection (resection arthroplasty of the acromioclavicular joint [ACJ]) results in ratable impairment, but only a single diagnosis within a region may be rated. Therefore, if another impairing condition is present in the shoulder region (eg, impingement syndrome or rotator cuff disease) only that resulting in the greatest causally related impairment is rated. In the setting of an occupational or other compensable injury or illness, causation of the impairment often is a key issue because, typically, only impairment that is causally related to the injury can be rated. For example, assume that a lifting injury at work caused a tear in a rotator cuff tendon that was already attenuated by repetitive impingement on inferiorly projecting spurs from longstanding degenerative arthritis of the ACJ. If surgery was performed for a traumatic rotator cuff tear and the distal clavicle also was resected due to preexisting ACJ arthritis, the latter surgery is not considered to be related to the injury. In other words, because the ACJ arthritis was neither caused nor worsened by the injury, this condition is not rated. The distal clavicular resection may have been warranted to diminish pain due to ACJ arthritis and/or eliminate the distal clavicle as a source of impingement.
Abstract
Injuries to a specific region can result in more than one diagnosis. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, states that, in most cases, only one diagnosis in a region (eg, hip, knee, or foot/ankle) is appropriate. If a patient has two significant diagnoses (eg, ankle instability and posterior tibial tendonitis), the examiner should use the diagnosis with the highest impairment rating in that region that is causally related. The rationale for this principle is that the rating for the diagnosis with the highest impairment also encompasses the functional loss of diagnoses with lesser impairment; it also attempts to prevent the use of multiple diagnoses to inflate the impairment rating. In the Case Example, a 62-year-old female teacher was tripped and fell on her left knee at work; the diagnoses were osteoarthritis and medial collateral ligament sprain. Despite activity modification and extensive treatment, she reported only moderate improvement; an orthopedic surgeon was consulted and recommended total knee replacement (TKR), but the patient declined and decided to retire with the option to consider TKR later, if necessary. Causation is an issue because tricompartmental arthritis clearly was not caused by the fall, but one wonders about the role of the individual's arthritis is unclear. Evaluators should be aware that such apportionment varies by jurisdiction.
Abstract
Evaluators who use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, should understand the significant changes that have occurred (as well as the Clarifications and Corrections) in impairment ratings for disorders of the cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, and pelvis. The new methodology is an expansion of the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) method used in the fifth edition, but the criteria for defining impairment are revised, and the impairment value within a class is refined by information related to functional status, physical examination findings, and the results of clinical testing. Because current medical evidence does not support range-of-motion (ROM) measurements of the spine as a reliable indicator of specific pathology or permanent functional status, ROM is no longer used as a basis for defining impairment. The DRE method should standardize and simplify the rating process, improve validity, and provide a more uniform methodology. Table 1 shows examples of spinal injury impairment rating (according to region of the spine and category, with comments about the diagnosis and the resulting class assignment); Table 2 shows examples of spine impairment by region of the spine, class, diagnosis, and associated whole person impairment ratings form the sixth and fifth editions of the AMA Guides.
