Luis Pérez-Cordero

PD Rating Specialist

mailto:pdrating@pacbell.net

California Permanent Disability Ratings

WWW.PDRATINGS.COM

Voice: (415)-861-4040

Craig A. Lange

Administrator/Med Report Tech

mailto:craiglange@pacbell.net

Southern California Fax #: (619) 374-7334 / Sacramento/Central California Fax #: (916) 848-3582

Bay Area Fax #: (415) 276-3741

Permanent & Stationary Comprehensive Medical Report

Common Report Errors And How To Fix Them

 

I                      Speaking The Same Language: Defining Permanent Disability (PD)

 

Work Capacity Functional Loss  - Permanent Partial Disability To Permanent Total Disability

Disability percentages are progressive and compacting in nature as they move upwards.  Analogies for a level of functional loss as represented by a rating standard (be it scheduled or not), cannot be based on the ‘compounding and pyramiding’ of fragmented functional factors of disability. The ‘progressive cumulative nature’ of The Rating Standards of PD has not changed even with the inclusion of multiple definitions of functional loss assigned to any given rating standard.

00

05

08

10

13

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

00% = Permanent Partial Disability  = 99%

Work With A Minimum Of Demands For Physical Effort =

Legal (PERMANENT) Total Disability=

Loss of Both Eyes or Sight Thereof = Loss of Both Hands or Use Thereof = Practically Total Paralysis=

No Repetitive, Strenuous or Heavy Work =

Brain Injuries Resulting in Incurable Imbecility or Insanity=

Substantial Loss of All Work Ability =

Loss Of Use of One or Both Legs =

 

LP Cordero (01/99)Ó

A        Permanent Disability (PD) – LC Section § 4660 & (8 CCR 10151)

 

Workers Compensation (WC) represents a compromise between the interests of both employer and employee. The physician plays a critical role in helping all concerned parties in their ‘good faith’ effort to quantify disability to arrive at appropriate compensation for work-related injuries.

 

PD is the benefit segment of WC that deals with the residual effects of an industrial injury (partial or total loss as compared to its previous level of functioning).  PD (%) is the degree to which the permanent effects of the injury have diminished the capacity of an employee to compete for/maintain employment.

 

1.       When determining PD we consider: (LC § 4660)

a.      The nature of the physical injury/disfigurement,

b.      The occupation and age when injured,

c.       The diminished ability to compete in an open labor market.

 

2.       A rating can range from 0% to 100%.  Presumptions of Total Disability: (a) Loss of Both Eyes or sight (b) Loss of Both Hands or their use thereof. (c) Total Paralysis (d) Insanity/Imbecility. All others are determined in accordance with the facts. (LC § 4662) 

 

3.       We rate medically evaluated residuals of an industrial injury by the use of The Schedule of Rating Permanent Disabilities. The Schedule creates an arrangement of disabilities and values, which stand in relationship to one another.  It provides the structure necessary to assign a standard to a non-scheduled disability according to its seriousness. The medical findings and conclusions translate into a Permanent Disability Rating Formula which can be based on:

 

a.      Objective Physical Findings - amputation/motion loss/orthopedic appliances

b.      Subjective Factors - disabling when they affect function

c.       Loss of functional capacity - expressed as a % of loss and/or a work restriction for a specific function or group of functions.

 

II                    Indexes of Disability  (Functional Loss)

 

A        OBJECTIVE MEASURABLE PHYSICAL FACTORS: Physical/Operational Loss.

 

Two correlating Indexes (and/or their components) are used to assist in the numeric rendering of equitable, predictable determination of PD.  Either Index or both can be used to describe a particular condition.  Each generates its own disability rating formulation.   When both are used, the Index producing the higher rating is taken. Clear and logical reasoning must support the evaluator’s opinion of functional loss under either index.  No level of residual permanent disability is immune from these requirements.

Page 1 of 15

 

Luis Pérez-Cordero

PD Rating Specialist

mailto:pdrating@pacbell.net

California Permanent Disability Ratings

WWW.PDRATINGS.COM

Voice: (415)-861-4040

Craig A. Lange

Administrator/Med Report Tech

mailto:craiglange@pacbell.net

Permanent & Stationary Comprehensive Medical Report

Common Report Errors And How To Fix Them

 

The Schedule provides standard ratings for much impairment, frequently at their most disabling extremes. Most scheduled objective factors of disability are for total loss of motion or amputation at a joint.   However, residuals from injuries are more often partial impairments.  The rating should reflect the proportional amount of loss appropriate to the condition.  This is achieved by taking a fractional portion of the age adjusted rating [formula] for complete loss. The use of Orthopedic Appliances is also given consideration, when medically prescribed.

 

Reporting Measurable Findings: Physician must report measurable physical elements of disability in accordance with the standard method as described in the book - Evaluation of Industrial Disability.  (Packard Thurber, MD)- California Code of Regulations 8 CCR 46 & 9725  "Packard Thurber defines how the evaluator should measure the physical elements of disability; Packard discusses what should be measured.”Industrial Medical Council

 

1.      Reporting includes: 1

 

a.      Relevant description of body habitus and any general observations such as obvious discomfort while sitting, standing, limping, etc.

 

Example of Clear Reporting Language:  “Dexterity and hand strength were intact for handling papers and when opening the examination room door.”

 

b.      Circumferential measurements & comments of the involved muscle groups and supporting tissues.

 

c.       Evaluation of all joints on an injured extremity, including the inhibited arc of motion as well as comments on rhythm/pattern (progression pace) of any given joint.

 

d.      The Notes & the Reasons for any limitations and/or discrepancies in formally measured vs. casually observed range of motion. If measurements or observations are normal, simply state ‘normal.’

 

Example of Clear Reporting Language:  “Pain was experienced with range on motion in all directions. Range appeared more restricted during the formal aspects of the examination, than during the interview.  Range of motion was limited in a standing posture that was not commensurate with his ability to sit unsupported on an examination table.  The loss or range of motion doesn’t represent a factor of medical impairment. “ (Dr. Alan Kimelman, PQME)

 

e.      Grasping power measurements - 3 successive tests of the right and left grips  (with the wrist in moderate dorsiflexion); reporting all test results; commenting on exerted effort during testing; providing complete measurements of both upper extremities; giving a reasoned opinion logically explaining the causation for the grip loss, if any.

 

Example of Clear Reporting Language:  “Examination of the hands reveals no masses, deformities or scars. There is no intrinsic thenar or hypothenar atrophy, swelling, signs of disuse atrophy or areas of tenderness. The patient is able to make full grip, whereby all fingertips touch the midpalm crease and the patient extends all fingers fully.  The patient is able to touch the fifth metacarpal head with the respective thumb.  Carpal compression test, Phalen and Tinel are negative for median nerve entrapment in the carpal tunnel.  There is excellent strength of opposition, without intrinsic tightness. There is no collateral ligament laxity in any of the digits, with all flexors/extensor tendons fully functional, without any extensor lag.” Dr. R.G. Ghazal – PQME

 

Example of Clear Reporting Language:  “In the Primary Treating Physician (PTP) P&S evaluation, (PTP) states that the patient is in need of a non-scheduled work preclusion of being able to sit or stand or otherwise move about to change position at will. She did not complain to me about problems with sitting. During my Evaluation, she sat for approximately 45 minutes during the history-taking portion of examination. I do not feel that she needs any work preclusion in that regard.  Regarding standing, she describes no pain or impairment with her standing.  Her primary pain aggravators are lifting, to a lesser extent repetitive bending, and twisting.”  Ross Chiropractic: Douglas Kyle, DC, D.A.B.C.O.

 

1 For A More Complete Outline: Refer To Evaluation of Measurable Factors at http://www.pdratings.com/MeasurableObjectiveFactors.htm

Page 2 of 15

 

Luis Pérez-Cordero

PD Rating Specialist

mailto:pdrating@pacbell.net

California Permanent Disability Ratings

WWW.PDRATINGS.COM

Voice: (415)-861-4040

Craig A. Lange

Administrator/Med Report Tech

mailto:craiglange@pacbell.net

Permanent & Stationary Comprehensive Medical Report

Common Report Errors And How To Fix Them

 

2.       The Impact of Under-Reporting:

 

a.      Medical Legal Report must be capable of proving/disproving a disputed medical fact. In determining whether a report meets requirements, a WCAB Judge considers the substance, as well as ‘form’ of the report, as required by applicable statutes and regulations. (LC§ 4620)  Comprehensive Medical-Legal Evaluation: Evaluation of an employee, which results in the preparation of a narrative medical report prepared and attested to in accordance with LC§ 4628.  Follows any applicable procedures promulgated under LC§ 139.2 and the requirements of 8 CCR § 10606. Is either performed by a (QME), (AME), or (PTP). (8 CCR § 9793 {c}.)

 

b.      Substantial Medical Evidence Is:

 

                    i.            The complete and thorough evaluation of objective measurable and clinical factors.

 

                  ii.            The complete description of Subjective Disability Factors and its relationship to the underlying pathological processes, while distinguishing the difference between ‘complaints’ and ‘subjective disability’ and it affects function.

 

                iii.            The foundation of Labor Code § 4660’s ‘implementing tool’ - The Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities.

 

                 iv.            The support for the reasoned/rational medical opinion requirements of 8 CCR WCAB § 10606(f)(h)(i)(k)(m)(n) as to the nature, extent and duration of disability and work limitations.

 

                   v.            The validation for addressing the diminished ability to compete in an open labor market. (Need for job modifications) (LC § 4660 [a])

 

3.      Example: Under-Reporting Grip: No Comment On Readings or Effort

 

Body Habitus/

Measurable Objectives:

Upper Extremities: Right hand dominance. Weighted cervical range of motion is within normal limits- palpable tenderness and spasms, right trapezius.   No evidence of deformity or atrophy, right shoulder. Limitation of right shoulder flexion to 110/1800 and abduction 100/180o - pain on active motion.   Circumferences(R/L): Arms 13/12¾”, forearms 8¼/7¾”. Motor Power, Reflexes & Sensory: Within normal limits, with diffuse giving-away to muscle testing, of both the right upper and lower extremities.

GRIP (R/L): 10/47 - 80% RATABLE REDUCTION OF GRASPING POWER.

Reduction of Grasping Power would rate as follows:(Computer Operator – Age 43)

3/4  (10.511 - 40% - 230 - G -  43 - 45) 34

= 34%

Pertinent Questions?

Q:  Is the pattern of grip measurements compatible with muscle physiology? Are there signs of weakness or atrophy involving the dorsal interosseous thenar or hypothenar muscles in either hand? (Isn’t the injured forearm circumference 8¼”? (Left 7¾”)

Q:  Isn’t an 80% reduction of grasping power contradictory to physician’s own findings and measurable physical elements of disability - to include no atrophy of pertinent musculature?

Q: Since grip is accomplished entirely by lower arm musculature, without neurological involvement, is shoulder level pathology a valid foundation supporting such a substantial level of grip loss?

Work Capacity Index:

Upper Extremities:  No repetitive use of the right upper extremity at shoulder level or above.  A 50% loss of pre-injury capacity for work at or above 900.

(Work Restriction Rates) 7.3   -   8% - 230 - F -   8 – 09

= 09%

Page 3 of 15

 

Luis Pérez-Cordero

PD Rating Specialist

mailto:pdrating@pacbell.net

California Permanent Disability Ratings

WWW.PDRATINGS.COM

Voice: (415)-861-4040

Craig A. Lange

Administrator/Med Report Tech

mailto:craiglange@pacbell.net

Permanent & Stationary Comprehensive Medical Report

Common Report Errors And How To Fix Them

 

4.      Example: Under-reporting Grip: Estimated Normal (en)

 

Average Normal are to be used in cases of bilateral injuries or pre-existing disabilities; the individual characteristics are used to modify these figures, e.g. age, stature, weight, range of motion of other body joints, anomalies, or other abnormal conditions, etc.

 

Body Habitus/

Measurable Objectives:

Right hand dominance.  Well-healed surgical scars, bilateral carpal tunnel releases.   Normal posture, spinal curvatures and muscular symmetry.  Slight palpatory tenderness and spasm, upper back.  Weighted cervical range of motion is 92% of normal.   Upper Extremities: Bilateral shoulders (R/L) abduction 170/160o/180en forward flexion 165/170/180en. Full range of motion of the elbows, forearms, wrists and hands.

Q: Where are the Circumferences of Pertinent Musculature(R/L)?

Jamar Readings:  (R) 10-10-10 / (L) 35-35-30

Estimated Normal: (R) 60lbs. (L) 54lbs.

(R) 10 / 60en = 85%  (L) 33 / 54en = 40%

Pertinent Questions?

Q:  Doesn’t normal range have to do with the employee’s occupation and whether or not the employee is a well-conditioned person?  (In other words, an individual can work on increasing grip strength, using various devices despite their work.  Most people do not use their grip actively or frequently and would fall into what is considered normal range for relatively inactive people.)

Q: Both measurable and clinical findings are negative for any restriction of motion or neurological impairments – on testing of the lower arms, is the tenderness present the only support for the reduction of grasping power?

Q: Why has physician failed to provide the circumference of pertinent musculature for the bilateral upper extremities or comment on exerted effort?

Reduction of Grasping Power would rate as follows: (Accounting Clerk – Age 55)

38/70 (10.513 -  85% - 111 - E -  83 - 86) 47

= 47%

Work Capacity Index:

Upper Extremities: No Very repetitive strenuous (physical) and fine manipulation (dexterity) endeavors.

7.7    -  15% - 111 - G -  17 – 20

= 20%

 

B      Subjective Factors: (The Most Problematic Reporting Area.)

 

Subjective Disability is characterized in terms of affected body part, intensity, frequency, and activity giving rise to the pain.  Disabling pain should be described by the activity or activities that produces the pain. Other subjective factors can include numbness, weakness, tenderness, paresthesias and increased/decreased sensitivity.  All of these factors may or may not cause a degree of disability.  They become disabling when they affect function.

 

List the employee’s complaints at the time of examination. Describe any subjective complaints, which the employee attributes to the industrial injury, and then give your medical opinion regarding validity and the reasons for conclusions. 

 

 

Page 4 of 15

 

 

 

 

Luis Pérez-Cordero

PD Rating Specialist

mailto:pdrating@pacbell.net

California Permanent Disability Ratings

WWW.PDRATINGS.COM

Voice: (415)-861-4040

Craig A. Lange

Administrator/Med Report Tech

mailto:craiglange@pacbell.net

Permanent & Stationary Comprehensive Medical Report

Common Report Errors And How To Fix Them

 

 

1.      Reporting of Subjective Disability Factors includes: a description of the activity that produces the symptoms (heavy work, repetitive use, heavy lifting, etc.), the duration or frequency of the symptoms (occasional, intermittent, frequent, constant), the level (intensity) of the symptoms (severe, moderate, slight, minimal), the activities precluded as well as those that can be performed with the symptoms.  Comment on the means necessary to relieve the symptoms and all other subjectives whether they are pain, tenderness, sensitivity, sensory disturbances, weakness, fatigue or neurogenic residuals. (8 CCR 46, 9725, & 9727)

 

2.      Example: How Identifying Language Becomes Inconsistent Language: In the Same Medical Report Physician describes the following conflicting levels of disability.

 

Subjective Factors

“The subjective factors for the lumbar spine are valid and should be rated as follows: Constant moderate lower back pain that rises to a severe level on an occasional basis.  Inciting activities include lifting, bending, stooping, pushing, pulling, climbing and standing in one place.”

Subjective Disability Would Rate: (Cook – Age 42)

12.1   -  55% - 322 - F -  55 – 57

= 57%

Work Capacity Index:

“The subjective and objective factors of disability for the spine contemplate a 50% loss of pre-injury capacity for performing such activities as bending, stooping, lifting, pushing, pulling, climbing or other activities involving comparable physical effort.  The above subjective and objective factors contemplate a disability precluding heavy work.”

Work Restrictions Would Rate  (Cook – Age 42)

12.1   -  30% - 322 - F -  30 – 32

= 32%

Supplemental Response when clarification was requested:

Work Capacity Index:

“He does have a relative disparity between Objective Factors and Subjective Factors of Disability which is not an uncommon finding of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain syndrome. The relationship of the reported pain to the underlying pathological processes is direct and anatomic.” J. Wallace, DCPA-C QME

The response fails to address the inconsistency between the described levels of work capacity functional loss.

 

3.      Identify both Complaints & Subjective Disability:

 

a.      Describe any complaints the patient attributes to the injury and then give opinion regarding validity and the reasons for conclusions.  Describe the pain and report complaints of radiating pain into other areas, using the injured worker’s own words, particularly if this results in a separate physical impairment. Describe collateral symptoms, such as itching, cramping, tingling, etc., in regards to location, severity, and frequency in relation to motion, effort and activity. Outline factors or treatments, which tend to relieve the pain or symptoms.

Page 5 of 15

 

 

Luis Pérez-Cordero

PD Rating Specialist

mailto:pdrating@pacbell.net

California Permanent Disability Ratings

WWW.PDRATINGS.COM

Voice: (415)-861-4040

Craig A. Lange

Administrator/Med Report Tech

mailto:craiglange@pacbell.net

Permanent & Stationary Comprehensive Medical Report

Common Report Errors And How To Fix Them

 

b.      Describe how the symptoms affect performance/ability to work, rather than how severely the injured worker perceives the symptoms.

 

c.      Then, “translate” into ratable language in the Subjective Factors of Disability Section.

 

                     i.            Disability cannot be based on the complaints. Complaints are not ‘Subjective Disability’.  Disability is based on the objective medical opinion as to the subjective factors of disability after the completion of the medical evaluation. The reasons supporting the subjective disability must go beyond a listing of diagnoses or findings.

 

                  ii.            Example: “Once again, I do not feel that any additional therapy and or intervention at this point would improve this patient’s current pain complaints. For a person who complains of moderate-to-severe pain subjectively, he has no pain guarding and/or evidence of disuse atrophy, he appears very comfortable and is able to participate in his physical exam without any complaints.” – Northern California Rehabilitation Associates 

 

4.      Complete Identifying Language:  (Incomplete Language = Assumptions/Conjecture)

 

By Severity/Frequency/Activities Precipitating the Pain

Example # 1: Constant slight pain that increases to moderate with heavy lifting and to moderate-to-severe intermittently with Heavy Work.

(1) First Level of Pain

Constant Slight Pain

 10

(2) Next Level of Pain

Moderate

 50

(3) Subtract #1 from # 2:

 

-10

(4) Modify Result by Value Of Activities Precipitating # 2

Heavy Lifting 20%

20% = 1/5

(40) = 08

(5) Add Result of # 4 to # 1

10 + 08% = 18%

 

(6) Next Level: Moderate-to-severe Pain

Moderate-To-Severe (75%)

 75

(7) Subtract The Result of # 5:

Minus -

-18

(8) Modify Result by Frequency in which # 6 occurs:  (Intermittently) = 50%

½

(57)

28.5

(9) Modify Result by % value for activities precipitating the pain – Heavy Work  (30%)

30% (28.5) =  8.55

(10) Add result of #9 to #5 After rounding, the addition becomes the subjective disability rating standard .

18 + 8.55 = 26.55 = 25%Ú

Standard After Rounding:

25%

By Activity That Precipitates The Pain

Example # 2:  Intermittent slight-to-moderate pain with sedentary type activities.

(1) Level of Pain

Intermittent Slight-to-Moderate

15

(2) Values of Activities Precipitating the Pain

Sedentary Type Activities

70%

(3) Multiply  # 1 by X 2

15 X 70 =

11

(3) Round result of # 3.  After rounding, the addition becomes the subjective disability rating standard.

11 = 10% 1

Standard After Rounding:

10%

1 The Resulting standard should be expressed as one of the following values: 1,2,3,5,8,10,13,15 & multiples of 5% thereafter, before modification for age and occupation.  (See Page 1-13 of The Schedule.)

C        Work Capacity Index: Justifiable Limitations of Functional Loss.

 

The overall loss of pre-injury capacity should be discussed, identified and explained with references to the factors and functional tasks used in the formulation of the estimate. 

 

Functional loss is correlated with work history, findings, & examination, and is indicated in terms of a percentage loss of pre-injury capacity for the specific individual.  A Scheduled or Analogized Work Restriction (an identifiable word description of functional loss for pre-determined values) can be an equivalent counterpart. 

 

Page 6 of 15

 

Luis Pérez-Cordero

PD Rating Specialist

mailto:pdrating@pacbell.net

California Permanent Disability Ratings

WWW.PDRATINGS.COM

Voice: (415)-861-4040

Craig A. Lange

Administrator/Med Report Tech

mailto:craiglange@pacbell.net

Permanent & Stationary Comprehensive Medical Report

Common Report Errors And How To Fix Them

D        Work Capacity Index: Justifiable Limitations of Functional Loss.

 

The overall loss of pre-injury capacity should be discussed, identified and explained with references to the factors and functional tasks used in the formulation of the estimate. 

 

Functional loss is correlated with work history, findings, & examination, and is indicated in terms of a percentage loss of pre-injury capacity for the specific individual.  A Scheduled or Analogized Work Restriction (an identifiable word description of functional loss for pre-determined values) can be an equivalent counterpart. 

 

In order to prevent further injury/disability (whether specifically relevant to the current occupation), work restrictions establish limits of specific activities or tasks due to a disability that impedes an activity, body position & motion, to avoid an exposure such as to chemicals, substances, heat, etc.

 

1.       Percentage Loss of Pre-injury Capacity: Based on a comparison of what the worker could do before and after the injury. The loss of pre-injury capacity is reported as a percentage. The medical evidence relied on must be clearly described. (AD No. 4061-02-18899 – Rocha vs. C.C.I.) 

 

Loss of pre-injury work capacity can be estimated broadly in four main levels addressing the 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% levels of functional loss.  When sufficient information is available, the physician should be able to estimate the overall level of functional loss more precisely.

 

Prolonged/Very Heavy /Very Forceful Tasks:

25% loss of pre-injury capacity

Substantial Loss:

75% loss of pre-injury capacity

Repetitive/Forceful/Strenuous/Heavy Tasks

50% loss of pre-injury capacity

Sustained Tasks

100% loss of pre-injury capacity

 

a.      Integrating vs. Fragmenting Functional Loss in The Extremities:

Upper Extremity Chart - http://pdratings.com/singleuec.htm

Lower Extremities Chart - http://pdratings.com/lowerextremities.htm

 

Joint function doesn’t occur in total isolation, but rather as an integral component of the extremity’s kinetic chain.  For example, in an upper extremity the elbow joint serves as the anatomic link between the shoulder (arm) and hand, thereby allowing hand placement as well as upper extremity force transmission and absorption.    Keeping in mind the anatomy and biomechanics of the injured extremity, the physician can express loss of pre-injury work capacity by referring to the “loss of function” dealing with placement, movement, manipulation, dexterity, pinching, grasping, gripping, torquing, pushing, pulling, lifting, carrying, repetitive movements, fine manipulation, and/or other activities involving comparable physical effort.  

 

For the lower extremities, the overall % loss of pre-injury capacity should address the activities pertaining to the anatomical functioning of the lower extremities as it pertains to weight bearing activities derived from the primary anatomical function of the lower extremities, which involves the support of the full weight of the body by the legs.  Weight bearing preclusions include such activities as standing, walking, squatting, kneeling, crouching, crawling, pivoting, climbing, walking on uneven ground or other activities of comparable physical effort, such as lifting, carrying, pushing/pulling, etc. 

 

b.      General Examples For The Extremities:

 

40% loss of pre-injury capacity for lifting, pushing-pulling, grasping, pinching, holding, torquing, finger dexterity/manipulation and other activities of comparable physical effort.

50% loss of ability for manipulation or repetitive tasks.

75% loss of ability for forceful grasping. (Power gripping) (Sustained Grasping)

25% loss of pre-injury capacity for weight bearing

50% loss of pre-injury capacity for knee flexion and extension.

 

Page 7 of 15

 

 

 

Luis Pérez-Cordero

PD Rating Specialist

mailto:pdrating@pacbell.net

California Permanent Disability Ratings

WWW.PDRATINGS.COM

Voice: (415)-861-4040

Craig A. Lange

Administrator/Med Report Tech

mailto:craiglange@pacbell.net

Permanent & Stationary Comprehensive Medical Report

Common Report Errors And How To Fix Them

 

2.       Preventive Work Restrictions (PWR): Stated in order to prevent further injury when an injured worker cannot/should not perform a specific function or a similar group of functions. Based on medical impairment, PWR are stated to prevent undue pain or harmful symptoms. The type of limitations can be both ‘temporary’ (to allow employee to return to modify work during healing process) and permanent.  They facilitate job or ergonomic modifications, helping to determine levels of PD functional loss as well as job retraining plans for Vocational Rehabilitation Benefits.

 

PWR are always based on a sound medical opinion that takes into account all aspects of the medical evaluation, medical history and measurable physical/clinical findings. They are imposed when warranted by the findings and when the physician feels that further performance of a specific work function or group of functions will lead to: (1) increased symptoms, (2) excessive increase in the need for treatment, (3) excessive flare-ups, (4) a greater level of residual permanent disability. If no work preclusions are needed and the residual disability is best expressed by either the objective or subjective factors alone, it should be so stated

 

 “Disability may be expre ssed in terms of limitations of work activities.  The Schedule provides a framework of work capacity guidelines for individual torso (i.e., neck, back, pelvis, abdomen, heart, chest and lungs), and separate guidelines for lower extremity disabilities.”  [Page 1-8 of The Schedule.]

 

3.       Paradoxical Use of The Word Prophylactic:  The word prophylactic means ‘to-guard-against’.  When used with a work restriction, it implies that without the work restriction, the injured employee would be harmed. 

 

  1. When substantiated by realistic findings identified in the formulation of the medical opinion, valid work restrictions don’t need to be obscured by the use of the word prophylactic.

 

  1. The word prophylactic is not in itself ‘objective evidence’ capable of proving, disproving, or supporting disability.  It only serves to disguise the lack of material findings, in turn building the facade of ‘reasonable medical probability’, creating both impairment and disability. (LC§ 4620, 8 CCR WCAB § 10606 [f] [h] [i] [k] [m] [n], 8 CCR 9793[c].)

 

III                  Consonance: Between Discussion of Disability (PD) and The Need For Job Modifications.

 

A        The Job & Its Functions:  Your Descriptions as to job duties and activities.

 

There should be no inconsistencies between statements addressing an injured employee’s need for job modifications and the described levels of functional loss under Permanent Disability.

 

Understanding Scheduled terminology and their corresponding levels of functional loss avoids misunderstandings and inconsistencies when describing multiple factors of disability: loss due to subjective factors, work restrictions and/or the ‘opinion’ on the need for job modifications or alternative work.

 

A Job Description or Job Analysis helps with the Medical Eligibility for Determination and the loss of functional capacity.  If not provided, ask the employee to describe duties and incorporate the description in the report. The description then becomes a qualifier for the physician’s eligibility determination and description of functional loss.

 

Correlation of functional loss (PD) to the need for current modifications or job functions helps all parties understand if the injured employee can return to the position they were engaged at the time of the injury.

 

Helpful identifiers of a realistic level of functional capacity or loss:  (1) actual deportment and bearing (prior, during and after) the examination,  (2) current job functions/duties  (if now engaged in a different occupation).  Like PD, the determination for job modifications must include not only the conclusion, but also the rationale.

 

1.      Examples of Integrating Language

 

  • The Patient works at Aeromat involved in battery assembly. She states that the batteries would weigh about ten pounds.  Her work was repetitive in that she would hold the battery in her left hand and use an air driven screwdriver in her right hand.  She would do 60 to 70 batteries a day.  There would be 8 to 10 batteries in a box. Each battery had a number of screws per battery.  She also welded wires for the batteries.  She began work on 6/92.  She denied concurrent work or home activities that aggravated her hands. She denied prior symptoms.”

Page 8 of 15

Physician's Page       Report Errors pgs 9-15               Home