Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

Doctor must evaluate impairment under current edition of AMA Guides

The degree of a claimant's impairment must be determined based on an evaluation by a physician pursuant to the most recent edition of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

Case name: Birk v. Charming Shoppes, 26 PAWCLR 37 (Pa. W.C.A.B. 2011).

Ruling: The Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated the workers' compensation judge's grant of the employer's modification petition. The board sent the case back for further consideration.

What it means: The degree of a claimant's impairment must be determined based on an evaluation by a physician pursuant to the most recent edition of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.

Summary: The board found that the WCJ erred in granting the modification petition because the impairment rating evaluation physician determined the claimant's impairment rating using the wrong edition of the AMA Guides. The WCJ granted the employer's modification petition, finding that the claimant reached maximum medical improvement and had a whole body impairment rating of 18 percent. The board concluded that the WCJ erred in accepting the physician's impairment rating evaluation based upon the 5th edition of the AMA Guides.

The 6th edition was issued five months before the physician performed the IRE using the 5th edition. Although the physician did not perform the IRE using the most current edition as statutorily required, the board found this was a unique situation because the IRE was performed before it would be feasible for a doctor to be trained and certified in the most current edition, which is required under the regulations.

The board sent the case back for the WCJ to permit the employer to have the claimant submit to a new IRE in which the impairment rating would be calculated under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides.

Read more at the WorkersComp Forum homepage.

May 19, 2011

Copyright 2011© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.