HOME PAGE

   
GO to Injured Worker Forum
Navigation:


ALL FORUM'S TOPICS OR AMA GUIDES 5TH & OTHER RATING QUESTIONS TOPICS [ REFRESH ]
Thread Title: 14% WPI RUE and 13% WPI LUE with no loss of range of motion
Created On Wednesday September 03, 2008 12:39 AM


angelinlaw
Member

Posts: 154
Joined: Jan 2005

Wednesday September 03, 2008 12:39 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

Hi all~

Does this sound medically sounder per the AMA Guides:

I have bilateral upper extremity and neck case, with IW alleged grip loss, but QME admitted exam did not reveal loss of ROM:

QME opines that the cause of grip strength loss represents an impairing factor that is not adequately addressed by other methods in the AMA and likewise, there is no interruption of the muscles.

Can QME use table on 507 when there is no muscle tear as the QME has admitted that the applicants weakness is NOT due to a disorder of the peripheral nerve.

RUE
The QME then opines that from Table 16-34 on page 509, there is "probably" 40% grip strength loss and further opines 20% upper extremity impairment, then provides for a 23% impairment uf the upper extremity, after finding 1% loss of motion of the elbow, to total 14% WPI for the RUE

LUE
QME also finds 1% loss of motion for the elbow, and combines it with the weakness of 20%, making a 21%, so a 13% WPI for the LUE?


Thanks

~ail

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



denyse
Senior Member

Posts: 740
Joined: Jun 2002

Wednesday September 03, 2008 9:57 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

The doc must first document why this merits "rare case". I would refer him to the examples in 16.7d and 16.8. Although 16.7d suggests release of the flexor/extensor origins or medial or lateral epicondylitis, it also refers to a tendon rupture. My preference is to rely on the part undere 16.8a that says "impairment of due to loss of strength could be combined with other impairments, only if based on unrelated etiologic or pathomechanical causes. Otherwise, the impairment ratings based on objective anatomic findings takes precedence." It's the unrelated part that ties in the possibility. If one quickly google searches unrelated etiologic or pathomechancical causes, you will get out of the box, abnormal findings. The recent case the judge ruled on grip loss was due to a condtion like this (now I hear AA's saying this case means docs can use grip loss - yes, for that condition!). An example is a post surgical wrist that developes an abnormal fatty deposit. This challenge works when you have ROM impairment (otherwise the anatomic findings take precedence).

It's when you have no ROM loss (see example 16-72) where the case can get dicey. R/C cuffs with no ROM are tough to defend, unless you can show the following:

I don't typically like the decrease strength or pain challenge per se, as the rest of the paragraph says "that prevents effective application maximal force". Doctor just punt and say it doesn't. As a secondary challenge, look at the work restrictions, subs, patient complaints and ROM loss and reference against the motions weakened (table 16-35). For example, if one is precluded from work above shoudler, how could this not impact abduction or ER. Both require a motion from ground parallel (90 degrees) to above head (180 degree). Or how about pain with lifting - could affect flexion and IR. As I said these are back up challenges.

Lastly, ensure the measurement are taken correctly.

As such, the doctor must be explict in my he/she feels this meets rare case (#1). If ROM, then this (strength) can only be rated if there is an unrelated or pathomechanical cause (#2). Then look at the ROM loss, pain issue and it impact on effort. Lastly ensure measurement are done pursuant to 16.8b (20% variant invalidates) .

The bottom line here is that strength should be rarely used. There are cases, but I usually see no documentation like the above suggests. Unfortunately this type of impairment can rate high, so if you dispute, make sure you develope the record for the PQME (LC 4061-62) and/or trier. Consider a rating (status) conference.

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



angelinlaw
Member

Posts: 154
Joined: Jan 2005

Wednesday September 03, 2008 5:38 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

thanks denyse!

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



denyse
Senior Member

Posts: 740
Joined: Jun 2002

Wednesday September 03, 2008 8:37 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

don't let the out of state raters tell you this is black and white. nothing in cali is black and white. more and more issues are evolving with analogies, grip, psyche, overlap/duplication, etc. Defend your position and define your exposure (defense costs versus probable outcome). keep an eye on case law. remember there is no crystal ball. team huddle and document your file. management and employers sometime have a short memory.

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom

FORUMS > AMA GUIDES 5TH & OTHER RATING QUESTIONS [ REFRESH ]

FuseTalk 3.0 - Copyright © 1999-2002 e-Zone Media Inc. All rights reserved.
© 2013 WorkCompCentral Workers Compensation Forums