Tag Archives: AMA Guides

PA Legislative Bill Would Require Use of 6th Edition of AMA Guides

Yesterday (October 2, 2017), a cadre of 29 Pennsylvania legislators introduced a bill—House Bill 1840—that would require physicians to apply the methodology set forth in “the sixth edition” of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on PA Legislative Bill Would Require Use of 6th Edition of AMA Guides

2017’s Top 10 Workers’ Compensation Cases

During September of each of the past five years, my colleague, Robin Kobayashi, and I have pulled together a volume entitled, Workers’ Compensation Emerging Issues Analysis. Annually published by LexisNexis®, it is a compendium of expert analysis and commentary highlighting … Continue reading

Posted in Issue commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 2017’s Top 10 Workers’ Compensation Cases

Pennsylvania High Court Strikes Down Use of “Most Recent” AMA Guides

In a highly anticipated decision, Protz v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Derry Area Sch. Dist.), 2017 Pa. LEXIS 1401 (June 20, 2017), a split Supreme Court of Pennsylvania yesterday held that the provision, found in Section 306(a.2) of the state’s Workers’ … Continue reading

Posted in Issue commentary | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Pennsylvania High Court Strikes Down Use of “Most Recent” AMA Guides

Kentucky IME May Use Clinical Skill and Judgment in Construing AMA Guides

Where an independent medical evaluator concluded that the active range of motion (ROM) measurements she obtained from an injured worker were implausible, indicative of poor effort, and insufficient to verify that an impairment of a certain magnitude existed, the physician … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Kentucky IME May Use Clinical Skill and Judgment in Construing AMA Guides

Disagreement Does Not Equal Clear and Convincing Evidence That Tennessee MIR Physician’s Opinion was Wrong

Where the opinion offered by an employee’s medical expert merely disagreed with the medical impairment registry (MIR) physician’s findings, yet did not show how that the MIR physician had used an incorrect method in assigning her impairment rating or had … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Disagreement Does Not Equal Clear and Convincing Evidence That Tennessee MIR Physician’s Opinion was Wrong

S.C. Supreme Court Says Return to Work Insufficient to Rebut Presumption of PTD Where Impairment to Back is Greater Than 50 Percent

Yesterday, in a divided decision, the Supreme Court of South Carolina, overruling an earlier decision of the state’s Court of Appeals, held that evidence of subsequent employment is insufficient by itself to rebut the presumption of permanent and total disability … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on S.C. Supreme Court Says Return to Work Insufficient to Rebut Presumption of PTD Where Impairment to Back is Greater Than 50 Percent

Tennessee Court Awards Permanent Total Benefits For Worker’s Migraines

The Supreme Court of Tennessee’s Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel recently affirmed a decision by a state trial court awarding an X-ray technician permanent and total disability benefits because of migraine headaches that the trial court had found were exacerbated … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tennessee Court Awards Permanent Total Benefits For Worker’s Migraines

PA Court Strikes Down Use of AMA Guides, 6th Ed.

Last Friday, a deeply divided Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania struck down as unconstitutional the requirement, codified in § 306(a.2) of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act [77 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 511.2(7)], that physicians use the most recent edition of the … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on PA Court Strikes Down Use of AMA Guides, 6th Ed.

PA Court Refuses to Consider Independent, Board-Certified MD’s Opinion Because of Her Practice “Mix”

When is the opinion of a board-certified (occupational medicine) physician, with years of experience and special training in the utilization of the AMA Guides, and who has performed numerous Impairment Rating Evaluations (IREs) under both the 5th and 6th editions … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment, Issue commentary | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Vermont: AMA Guides Are Mandatory for Impairment Rating Purposes–Not Diagnosis of Condition Itself

The Supreme Court of Vermont, in a split decision, recently held that while the AMA Guides (5th Ed.) are determinative with respect to “any determination of the existence and degree of permanent partial impairment” associated with a work-related injury, the … Continue reading

Posted in Case comment | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Vermont: AMA Guides Are Mandatory for Impairment Rating Purposes–Not Diagnosis of Condition Itself