Try the all-new QuickBooks Online for FREE.  No credit card required.

Impairment Rating of Neuromusculoskeletal Conditions

Document Sample
Impairment Rating of Neuromusculoskeletal Conditions Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                              Rate this Article
Impairment Rating of                                                                          Email to a
Neuromusculoskeletal Conditions                                                               Colleague
Last Updated: October 26, 2005                                                                Get CME/CE for
Synonyms and related keywords: impairment rating, impairment
evaluation, permanent impairment rating, PIR, permanent partial impairment,
permanent partial impairment evaluation, permanent partial impairment
rating, disability evaluation, disability rating, permanent partial disability
evaluation, permanent disability rating, permanent disability evaluation,
maximum medical improvement rating, functional capacity evaluation, FCE
     AUTHOR INFORMATION                                                                     Section 1 of 11
Author Information Introduction To Impairment And Disability Evaluation Concepts In Disability Evaluation Impairment Rating
Guides Impairment Rating Examples Example Of Disability Evaluation Legal And Other Issues Of Impairment Rating And
Disability Evaluation Psychiatric Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Sample Deposition Questions On
Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Pictures Bibliography

Author: Oregon K Hunter, Jr, MD, Consulting Staff, Department of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Medicine Associates

Coauthor(s): Dorothy Sims, JD, Attorney, Sims, McCarty, Amat & Stalkenborg, PA;
V Robert May III, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Department of Rehabilitation, Johnston
Willis Hospital, Southern Illinois University
Oregon K Hunter, Jr, MD, is a member of the following medical societies: American
Academy of Pain Medicine, American Academy of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic
Medicine, American College of Forensic Examiners, American College of Legal
Medicine, American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine, American Medical Association,
Florida Medical Association, Florida Society of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,
International Association for the Study of Pain, International Rehabilitation Medicine
Association, National Association of Disability Evaluating Professionals, and North
American Spine Society
Editor(s): Patrick J Potter, MD, Director of Spinal Cord Injury Program, Associate
Professor, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Parkwood Hospital,
Lawson Health Research Institute; Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD, Senior
Pharmacy Editor, eMedicine; Richard Salcido, MD, Chairman, Erdman Professor
of Rehabilitation, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of
Pennsylvania School of Medicine; Kelly L Allen, MD, Consulting Staff, Department
of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Lourdes Regional Rehabilitation Center,
Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center; and Consuelo T Lorenzo, MD, Consulting
Staff, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Alegent Health Care,
Immanuel Rehabilitation Center
   INTRODUCTION TO IMPAIRMENT AND DISABILITY                                                        Section 2 of 11
Author Information Introduction To Impairment And Disability Evaluation Concepts In Disability Evaluation Impairment Rating
Guides Impairment Rating Examples Example Of Disability Evaluation Legal And Other Issues Of Impairment Rating And
Disability Evaluation Psychiatric Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Sample Deposition Questions On
Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Pictures Bibliography

Definition of terms
Impairment rating of neuromuscular conditions in the United States originated in the
1950s. The American Medical Association (AMA) released the first edition of its AMA
Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment in 1971. The fifth edition is
currently available.

The impairment rating is an estimate of the severity of human impairment based on
acceptable medical standards. Various reference books, including the AMA Guides,
provide a standard method of analysis to evaluate, report on, and communicate
information about impairments to any human organ system.

According to the AMA Guides, impairment is an alteration of an individual's health
status that has been assessed by medical means. Impairment is used to describe a
static or stable condition that has had sufficient time to allow optimal tissue repair
and that is unlikely to change, despite further medical or surgical therapy. The
Florida Impairment Schedule defines impairment as anatomic or functional
abnormality or loss after maximal medical improvement (MMI) has been achieved.

The purpose of impairment rating is to represent impairment by using a generally
accepted system to estimate the degree to which illness or injury diminishes an
individual's capacity to daily activities. Activities of daily living (ADL) include self-care,
personal hygiene, preparing and eating food, communication (both spoken and
written), maintaining posture, standing, sitting, caring for home and personal
finances, walking, traveling, recreational and social activities, and work-related
activities. An individual with an impairment may or may not have sufficient capacity to
meet the demands of a particular profession or occupation.

Performing an impairment rating

First, the examiner should gather information to document the nature of the
impairment and its consequences. Review the patient's medical history, as well as
his or her office and hospital records. Use multiple sources of information to promote
objectivity and eliminate bias. For purposes of evaluation, the patient's medical
condition should be stable and unlikely to change in the future despite further
treatment. Treatment at this point is palliative rather than restorative.

Obtain clinical information from the patient's medical records and from physical
examination. Compare clinical information from several sources to check for
consistency. Resolve disparities, when possible, if the clinical information is
inconsistent. Use medically accepted and scientifically derived data based on the
patient's normal functioning whenever data are available. The impairment rating
values in the guides estimate the extent of impairments based on the authors' clinical
experience, judgment, and consensus. Impairment ratings are estimates of the
degree of impairment, based on the physician's judgment, experience, training, skill,
and thoroughness.

Other factors in determining the rating of impairment include a consideration of the
sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, reproducibility, and interpretation of findings from
laboratory and clinical procedures, as well as a recognition of interobserver variability
in interpretation.

In the impairment-rating process, a number derived from well-structured and
thorough observations is assigned. The strength of medical support for an
impairment estimate depends on the completeness and reliability of the patient's
medical documentation. The rating does not convey any information about the effect
of the impairment on the person's capacity to meet personal, social, or occupational

The fourth edition of the AMA Guides suggests, ―If, in spite of an observation or test
result, the medical evidence appears not to be of sufficient weight to verify that an
impairment of a certain magnitude exists, the physician should modify the
impairment estimate accordingly, describing the modification and explaining the

Impairment versus disability

Many practitioners confuse the terms impairment and disability. Disability refers to an
individual's inability to complete a task or a duty. Disability is an alteration of the
individual's capacity to meet personal, social, or occupational demands or statutory
or regulatory requirements because of an impairment. Disability arises from a
discrepancy between the limitations an impairment places on an individual and the
external tasks that must be performed (eg, tasks in an occupational setting).

Impairment, however, is an artificial construct—usually one the legal system
creates—to attempt to quantify the person's diminution in health. Specifically, "An
impairment is a deviation from normal in a body part or organ system and its
functioning," according to the fourth edition of the AMA Guides. However, normal is a
vague term that varies greatly depending on many factors, such as age and sex.
Normal is not a fine point or an absolute reference in terms of physical and mental
functioning or good health. Most often, normality is a range or a zone, as it is with
vision and hearing.

Many state disability systems adopt an impairment guide or schedule for calculating
damages. For example, Florida has adopted the Florida Uniform Permanent
Impairment Rating Schedule (FUPIRS). This schedule is loosely modeled after the
AMA Guides and purports to give impairment ratings based on various injuries or

As a practical example, an individual may have minor impairment and still be
considered totally disabled. For example, an uneducated bricklayer may have 5%
impairment due to lumbar strain. His physical restrictions may make it impossible for
him to continue working in his field. If he does not have the education to be retrained,
he is effectively unable to return to work. Therefore, the extent of his impairment may
be only 5%, but he is l00% disabled in terms of employment. In another example, a
noted author and lecturer may have sustained a catastrophic injury causing
thoracolumbar paraplegia. His impairment rating may be 70% according to the AMA
Guides. However, because he can continue his work with little to no interruption, he
may be considered to have no vocational disability.

In summary, the impairment rating alone, without a consideration of the extent of
disability and loss of function, does not provide a complete picture of the effect of
illness or injury on a particular individual.

    CONCEPTS IN DISABILITY EVALUATION                                                Section 3 of 11
Author Information Introduction To Impairment And Disability Evaluation Concepts In Disability Evaluation Impairment Rating
Guides Impairment Rating Examples Example Of Disability Evaluation Legal And Other Issues Of Impairment Rating And
Disability Evaluation Psychiatric Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Sample Deposition Questions On
Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Pictures Bibliography

Evaluating disability is more complex and involved than the impairment rating
discussed in the previous section. By definition, disability involves a consideration of
many factors beyond the purview of impairment rating. Although impairment
addresses a loss or deficit in any psychological, physiologic, or anatomic structure or
function, disability encompasses vocational, educational, psychosocial, and financial
factors, to name only a few, in addition to the rated impairment.

Whereas the impairment-rating system incorporates a coefficient of impairment,
assessment of disability has no such rating system, but disability benefits are
awarded by means of an administrative process the Social Security Administration
(SSA) developed as a result of the Social Security Act Amendments of 1954. These
amendments established the Disability Determination Units from which claimants
referred to clinical examiners for an assessment of impairment in regard to appeals
regarding Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) that the SSA adjudicates.

Assessment systems

SSA system

The most established disability-assessment system is the one the SSA developed for
persons who claim a degree of impairment that makes the resulting disability
significant. That is, impairment is significant enough that these individuals report
being completely incapable of engaging in gainful employment, and, thus, they are
unable to support themselves independent of state or federal subsidy.

The SSA expanded the traditional definition of impairment in determining an
individual's fitness for work by adding consideration of factors that define function as
a part of the disability assessment. For example, individuals who allege that they
cannot work because of angina pectoris may find that the condition itself is not
enough to permanently disqualify them from work. In evaluating the individual's
ability to function in a clinically controlled work setting with typical physical and
mental simulations, other issues directly related to diagnosis may apply. Examples
are the character, location, and duration of pain and how it evolves, what relieves it,
and how quickly relief is achieved. These factors, in addition to the patient's
diagnosis, may be enough for the clinical examiner to recommend that the patient
not return to gainful activity.

The SSA disability-evaluation process is bureaucratic, lacking a skilled and well-
trained medical examiner. An analysis reviews of all medical records with input from
a medical review officer but without any interaction with or examination of the
claimant. Therefore, as Pace states, the records must be sufficiently complete to
enable any independent reviewer who does not examine the claimant to determine
the nature, limiting effects, and duration of impairment on the basis of only the written
reports. The quality of the review is contingent on the cooperation of the medical
community to provide records to the SSA, a shortcoming of the current review

The Social Security Disability Evaluation System (SSDES) heavily relies on the
establishment and definition of the respective diagnosis and on the principle that
diagnosis can be determined objectively by using diagnostic and laboratory studies.
Function is a secondary consideration, or, in terms of the 1994 AMA impairment-
rating protocols, its application is that of a differentiator in determining the degree of
impairment or the residual functional capacity of the claimant outside impairment
parameters. In essence, function merits little consideration in impairment rating.
Other systems predating the SSA evaluation process similarly focused on
impairment, with some acknowledgment given to the effect of function on
McBride system

The earliest system, the McBride system (1936), was based on Workers'
Compensation law and readily adopted by Workers' Compensation Boards in various
states. The fundamental principle was that functional and/or social deficiencies were
as relevant as impairment itself. Therefore, McBride implemented an average rating
test that included the component of disabling functional deficiencies in addition to the
component of disabling physical impairments, as follows (Mooney, 1987):

      Disabling physical components
          o Anatomic and physiologic tissue damage
          o Clinical manifestations
          o Restrictions on work restoration
          o Restrictions on working conditions
          o Intangible and reactionary influences
      Disabling functional deficiencies
          o Intangible and reactionary influences
          o Coordination
          o Strength
          o Endurance
          o Security

Earl McBride, MD, first expressed the problem of standardization in evaluating
impairment, stating, ―[G]uessing at percentages seems to be more in order than
scientific reasoning. Consequently, the industrial commissioners in weighing and
applying the evidence often make a practice of splitting the difference in percentages
instead of weighing the facts scientifically. This is a reflection on the integrity of the
medical profession more than it is on the commission.‖

Efforts of the AMA

It was not until 1956, around the time of the Social Security Act Amendments, that
the AMA studied the issue of standardization in impairment rating. The AMA Board of
Trustees appointed an ad hoc committee of physicians to develop standards for
rating disability and impairment and to compile guides that all physicians could
follow. From the deliberations of this committee evolved a structured framework and
method of analysis "...through which physicians [could] evaluate, report on, and
communicate information about the impairments of any human organ system."

What the AMA had hoped to establish was a standardized system for physicians,
one that could produce consistent ratings, perhaps with models for standard
calculations for impairments rated by 2 or more independent physicians at different
times. However, in the 44 years since the AMA committee met, the goal of
establishing a universally accepted method seemed untenable, though evaluation
standards have been established. The medical community remains divided on
whether to use the guides and accompanying evaluation protocols, and questions
have been raised about reliability and validity associated with the AMA standards
and protocols. The establishment of consistent evaluation standards that impairment-
rating clinicians use has not been attained yet.

American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons' manual

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons published the Manual for
Orthopedic Surgeons in Evaluating Permanent Physical Impairment in 1962. This
manual was based on the AMA protocols (eg, range of motion [ROM], amputation)
but deviated somewhat, as it included a pain scale in line with documented organic
pathology. The manual further included impairment ratings for orthopedic conditions
and procedures not included in the AMA Guides. For example, in this rating system,
fractures of the tibial plateau are considered a possible source of impairment, the
extent of pain associated with this diagnosis is rated as well.

Kessler's Disability: Determination and Evaluation

H. Kessler, MD, published Disability: Determination and Evaluation in 1970, which
was somewhat based on the McBride model. However, he focused on loss of
function in his disability decision. Although Kessler supported McBride's efforts to
delineate the physical and functional components of disability, he maintained that
units of measure could be assigned to these components to provide a rational rating
coefficient. Although this approach is valid for assessing the upper extremities (UEs)
and lower extremities (LEs), rating the 3 spinal regions remains difficult. Kessler
rationalized that emotion was the dominant factor in the persistence and intensity of
back pain and noted that, in most patients reporting this problem, pain was the only
complaint. He concluded that the impetus of rating spinal impairment was to use
criteria based on the successful performance of ADLs.

Current challenges

The focus of this article thus far has been a review of the common and peer-
reviewed disability rating systems that the medical community and the judicial
system currently accepts and uses. The systems reviewed emphasize the
documentation of impairment, with disability as a secondary consideration in the
examiner's clinical judgment of whether a person is disabled or not. This emphasis
remains true today despite the mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 to integrate job simulation and assessment of the claimant's ability to function
into medical-examination protocols for return-to-work after disability leave.

The question remains: Why has the medical community avoided an evaluation of
true work function based on biomechanical and ergonomic simulation, preferring the
traditional independent medical examination (IME) method of systems review, reflex
studies, strength measures, and records review?

The answer to that question may be found in a review of the literature regarding
attitudes, training, and misuse of terminology that has perplexed the medical and
judicial system for years. In 1983, Ziporyn interviewed Talmadge Hiebert, MD,
founder of the National Association of Disability Evaluating Professionals (NADEP).
Hiebert took issue with terms used in the rating forms of workers'-compensation and
the SSDI programs, on which the disability and impairment were used
interchangeably. He remarked that the examining physician is confused when asked
about disability versus impairment issues. Hiebert further commented that physicians
do not receive any formal training in their medical-school programs regarding
evaluating or measuring function and that peer-reviewed articles about measuring
functional capacity usually do not appear in the medical journals and instead appear
in physiology, ergonomics, and exercise journals.

In 1988, Luck and Florence acknowledged that the problem rests primarily with a
lack of standardization among medical specialties. They specifically noted that many
physicians use more than 1 system for disability evaluation or impairment rating. Like
Hiebert, they found that many physicians are uncertain about the difference between
impairment and disability when drawing conclusions from their ratings.

One interesting observation was that impairment rating is often viewed as an
onerous and frustrating task because it lacks the positive reinforcement of helping
the sick patient and strains the physician-patient relationship. In other words,
physicians prefer the role of a healer and medical practitioner to that of an examiner
of impairment and/or disability, which often leads to an adversarial relationship
between themselves and their patients.

In 1993, Abel-Moty et al identified the problem primarily as a skill deficiency among
physicians who have great difficulty in translating the results of medical impairment
evaluations into functional measures. Physicians have not had adequate training in
functional measurement and disability evaluations to allow them to translate
impairment into functional disability.

Demand for impairment rating and functional-capacity evaluation

Despite the problems discussed above, impairment-rating services and functional-
capacity evaluations (FCEs, ie, disability examinations) are in high demand from the
legal and insurance professions because of rising healthcare costs and subsequent
lawsuits. The demand is specifically high in the areas of personal injury (eg, auto
liability), work-related injury (ie, workers' compensation), and product liability. More
than 15 years ago, Ziporyn stated, "[E]ach year American physicians receive
hundreds of thousands of requests to determine impairment and disability, and every
physician at some point in his or her career will be called upon to do so."

Occupational statistics further support the need for such services, expanding the
scope of the medical-service delivery system at a rapid pace. Before the 1989
healthcare census, musculoskeletal injuries and cumulative trauma disorders were
the second largest group of occupational illnesses in the United States. The most
common and expensive complaint of workers with musculoskeletal injuries is low-
back injuries that cost an estimated $14 billion dollars annually.

The insurance and legal communities have recognized the need for disability and
impairment-rating services, given that the number of working days lost per injury
increased by 150% and that workers'-compensation costs estimated $45 billion in
1989, or almost 2% of total wages earned by employees covered under workers'
compensation. Physicians who have previously spurned the legal community, who
scoffed at dealing with attorneys, or who refused to view their physician-patient
relationships as adversarial should learn to embrace and nurture this potential
service-contract opportunity.

Practitioners are constantly battling with the insurance industry to pay fees as billed,
fighting the nuances of managed care and health-maintenance organization (HMO)
programs, and coping with the customary and usual fee-for-service letters that reject
bills and pay what the insurance industry believes the service is worth, not to
mention the training and expertise required to provision of said service. Whatever
terms are applied in a litigious setting (eg, forensic medicine, disability examinations,
IMEs, FCEs), full 100% reimbursement for services rendered must be allowed. The
future financial health of practicing clinicians may rest in the courtroom or
administrative-law hearing room.

FCE systems

The most effective system for assessing disability in a forensic setting is the FCE
protocol. This technique allows for the rating of impairment, as well as an
examination of the person's ability to function in tasks, with standard norms
simulating the mechanics of work.


Klimek and Strait (1997) and May (1993) characterized the purpose of the FCE to
access and predict work behavior and vocational potential, as well as to match a
given level of work performance to appropriate tasks with a margin of safety that
reduces likelihood of reinjury. The applications are numerous in terms of workers'-
compensation, personal-injury, or product-liability cases. One application is when an
injured worker achieves MMI and the physician wants to know what work restrictions
to document before releasing the patient from care.

The FCE can be used to document specific work tolerances and recommendations
for the biomechanics of those tasks, detailing for the attending physician what
restrictions should be applied. If a discrepancy exists between the physician's
findings and the examinee's complaints, the FCE can offer evidence of the
complaints and specific diagnosis based on repeated measures and/or testing
techniques, psychometrics, and behavioral observations.

A comparative analysis of current FCE programs and instruction on how to perform
an FCE are beyond the purpose of this section. Instead, a few of the FCE programs
reviewed in the literature are presented below.

Several FCE protocols have been published, along with detailed reviews of their
application in the FCE process (eg, Feuerstein, 1992; Hart, 1988; Hart, 1994;
Matheson, 1988; May, 1984a; May, 1984b; May, 1988; May, 1993; Wickstrom,
1990). In 1984, May first described a protocol he developed on the basis of the
Matheson model, which incorporated job analysis, work-simulation activities,
materials-handling assessment, and testing of gross muscle strength. In 1988,
documented the role and function of the staff members on the FCE team. Hart et al
(1994) reviewed specific FCE components, including (1) recording the examinee's
history, (2) conducting preevaluation screening, (3) performing functional-capacity
testing, (4) interpreting the results, and (5) writing a report of the findings.

Isernhagen (1988) conceptualized the role of the physician in the FCE process with
her assessment of the purpose of FCE, that is, to assess the examinee's maximum
physical capabilities to arrive at a statement of the extent of the examinee's
impairment. Therefore, her statement alone suggests the involvement of a
multidisciplinary team to determine the person's functional capacity and resulting

Hart et al (1994) supports this team concept, noting that the FCE: ――combines a
comprehensive neuromusculoskeletal examination [physician, physio/occupational
therapist working as one evaluation team] with measurements of physical
impairment, symptom magnification/worker behaviors, and function and culminates
with the measurement of the current functional abilities of the client.‖‖

NADEP protocol

The researched protocol with established construct validity is the one Dr Talmage
Hiebert of the NADEP developed and which May and Martelli refined in 1999. The
NADEP FCE model is predicated on the work-capacity evaluation (WCE) protocol
that Dr L. Matheson of the Employment and Rehabilitation Institute of California
researched and established.

One of the primary components this last FCE model, and all subsequent ones, is the
analysis of materials handling and lifting.

This component is essential because most individuals referred for WCE have
musculoskeletal injuries due to work-related lifting and falling accidents that
culminate in orthopedic-related diagnoses. Therefore, the NADEP model must focus
on documenting the functional integrity of a worker's materials-lifting and materials-
handling capabilities to determine the most feasible work criteria for returning while
maintaining acceptable safety and productivity.

Matheson developed the lifting protocol in the NADEP model by using the Work
Evaluation System Technology (WEST) evaluation system (see Image 1). This lifting
evaluation system is the one that the NADEP protocol incorporates because of
Matheson's timely research into the safety and application of this component in the
FCE process.

The WEST system was developed to evaluate the lifting capacity of workers who
have had a variety of industrial injuries, using the full vertical work plane while
gradually increasing the examinee's workload. The system is safe to administer and
complies with the criteria for physical assessment measures t published by the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Furthermore,
Matheson established that the instrument is reliable on repeated-measures testing
and that the results compare favorably with isometric measures of lifting capacity.

Despite its focus on materials handling, however, the NADEP Work Disability
Evaluation Model incorporates 5 other components: (1) clinical interview and/or
intake screening, (2) patient profiling, (3) work–vertical plane functional
ROM/systems examination, (4) grip-strength testing, (5) static validity and/or
reliability and dynamic strength tests, and (6) domain testing.

The 6 components that constitute the NADEP model are easily documented and
calculated by hand. However, with the advent of computerized systems and
evaluation software the NADEP model has become an expedient evaluation tool that
can now combine impairment-rating coefficients in its summary interpretations. In
this way, it can provide the referring source with a combined report on functional
capacity and impairment rating.

See the Example of Disability Evaluation section below for a case study that applies
this protocol.

Other, including computerized, models

The NADEP model is only one of many FCE protocols, and the reader is encouraged
to review all the models published in the literature. The reader can find a multitude of
FCE computerized systems that advertise complete, valid, and reliable FCE
programs that can withstand the scrutiny of litigation. These systems sell the clinician
on the concept that they are designed to save time and effort because the system
performs all the calculations and presents the data in nicely ordered tables with bar
or line graphics of the repeated measures.

The reader is cautioned not to place rely on these systems to complete the FCE in a
valid and reliable manner. The FCE process and its administration are only as good
as the examiner. The quality of the FCE administration and the interpretation of its
results rest solely with the experience and training of the examiner and not with the
equipment used.
Reliability and validity of FCE

Background on reliability and validity research

The issue of reliability and validity in the FCE process remains, despite the quality of
the computerized system or the preferred manual method. Although Babisky and
Sewall identified reliability and validity issues in the impairment rating process, little
data suggest that the validity and reliability issues associated with FCE have been
resolved satisfactorily. King et al identified a lack of validity and reliability as a major
concern in their review of 10 major computerized FCE systems, 8 of which are well
known and accepted in the US marketplace. Only 2 systems achieved peer-reviewed
interrater and intrarater reliability research, and associated peer-reviewed validity
study was available for only 1.

Lechner et al similarly took issue with the lack of established reliability and the
potential for abuse in interpreting results from the application of test components in
FCE protocols. They reviewed application of the Waddell nonorganic signs, the
coefficient of variation, and the interpretation of heart-rate fluctuations with
incidences of pain and concluded that these components may be misinterpreted
and/or unreliable for determining maximum voluntary effort in the FCE.
Overinterpretation or misinterpretation may lead to false-positive results or to
identifying the examinee as one who is magnifying symptoms or malingering or as
one who may not be suitable for the competitive labor market.

An accurate assessment of a patient's willingness to exert maximal effort during FCE
is critical to interpreting the results of the evaluation. In a study by Lemstra et al
(2004), 90 patients with low back pain were evaluated for maximal effort during FCE.
The tester's opinion on the patients' results on the maximal-effort tests had an overall
specificity of 84.1% and a sensitivity of 65.2%. Only 5 of 17 commonly used maximal
effort tests were individually useful in differentiate between maximal effort and
submaximal effort. The authors concluded that caution should be exercise when one
identifies patients as giving maximal or submaximal effort during FCE.

Little doubt exists that more research is needed in the disability-examination process,
both in the medical field regarding IMEs and in the allied-health professions involved
in FCEs. As King et al noted, the overall quality of the examination process hinges
on the examiner's competence and specific training. Poorly training or inadequate
preparation of evaluators can confound reliability and validity, perpetuating a rater
effect in the testing protocol of the independent medical evaluation and FCE. The
rater effect surfaces when results are extrapolated from the clinical examiner's
personal biases or when the examination protocol is violated and its results are
misinterpreted because of the examiner's lack of methodologic training.

Although the review by King et al was thorough regarding FCE equipment, they
based their conclusions on the quality of the equipment rather than on the FCE
process itself. As noted before, the solution for this dilemma lies in the evaluator's
skill and training and not in the type of equipment chosen FCE. The NADEP
maintains that rater error and that deficits in skill can be minimized by establishing a
standardized or consistent evaluation protocol across all specialties complete with
consistent terminology. The NADEP attempted to achieve this goal with its FCE-
researched protocol.

FCE systems reviewed

Since the inception of the FCE process, numerous designers of evaluation
equipment have striven to build the optimal system. First, they wanted to take
advantage of the expanding need for systematic application of testing components to
minimize the time required of the therapist, physician, or evaluator and thus enhance
productivity. Second, they wanted to establish their vendor's company as a leader in
equipment design and function. The market demanded not only user-friendly
equipment for measuring function but also equipment that had undergone the
scrutiny of reliability and validation in peer-reviewed studies.

As noted earlier, King et al reviewed the 10 FCE systems or equipment vendors that
produce the most recognized FCE systems, 8 of which are from the United States or
Canada and 2 from Australia. The Table below summarizes these systems.

FCE Systems and Their Reliability and Validity

           FCE System                 Developer              Validity   Reliability

    Hanoun Medical*              Reed Hanoun                            In progress

    Blankenship                  Keith Blankenship          No          No

    Isernhagen Work Systems      Susan Isernhagen           No          No

    Physical Work Performance    Deborah Lechner
                                                            Yes         Yes
    Evaluation (Lecher, 1994)    (ErgoScience)

    WEST-EPIC                    Leonard Matheson                       Yes

    Key                          Glenda Key                 No          No

    ERGOS*                       Work Recovery, Inc         Yes

    ARCON                        Dana Rasch                 No          No

    AssessAbility                Michael Coupland           No          No

Note.—King et al (1998) reviewed 2 Australian systems not well known in this
country and therefore excluded from this table.
Not included in the original review by King et al (1998).

The literature about reliability and validity was reviewed for the Isernhagen Work
Systems FCE, the Blankenship system, the ERGOS Work Simulator, and the Ergo-
Kit. The search resulted in 77 potentially relevant references, but only 12 were
included and assessed for methodologic quality.

The interrater reliability and predictive validity of the Isernhagen Work Systems FCE
was good, though the procedure used in the studies of interrater (test-retest)
reliability was not rigorous enough to allow for any conclusion. Reneman et al
studied the test reliability of the Isernhagen Work Systems FCE. The test-retest
reliability of the material-handling group was acceptable. Crude analyses of the
ceiling and criterion tests revealed acceptable test-retest reliability of most, but not
all, tests (Reneman, 2004).

The concurrent validity of the ERGOS Work Simulator and the Ergo-Kit was not
demonstrated, and no study of their reliability was found. Likewise, no study was on
the reliability and validity of the Blankenship system was found.

The conclusion was that more rigorous studies are needed to demonstrate the
reliability and the validity of FCE systems, especially the Blankenship system, the
ERGOS Work Simulator, and the Ergo-Kit (Gouttebarge, 2004).

Validity of FCE in work-related applications

Gross examined the validity of the Isernhagen Work Systems FCE in predicting
timely return to work (Gross, 2004). He found that 4% of patients passed all
Evaluation tasks, yet most had temporary total disability suspension and claim
closure within 1 year after the FCE. Performance on the floor-to-waist lift was as
predictive of the number of tasks failed in the entire FCE protocol.

Insurance carriers have questioned the validity of FCEs. In a review by Pransky, test
criteria and the application of results were discussed (Pransky, 2004). The validity of
FCE results was optimal with accurate job simulation and detailed, intensive
assessments of specific work activities. When test criteria were unrelated to job
performance, or when subjective evaluation criteria were used, the validity of the
results is questionable. Reliability in a subject over time may be adequate to support
serial FCE data collection to measure progress in worker rehabilitation.

Data from Harbin and Olson support testing after a job offer is made and before
placement (Harbin, 2005). Strength testing alone was of no value in predicting the
incidence of work injury, though physical capacity was strongly correlated with
physical job requirements. Injury rates were lower in employees who had the
physical strength or ability to perform the essential functions of their jobs than in
those who did not. The incidence of low back injuries in workers with or without the
physical capability to perform the required job functions was 3% or 33%,
respectively. Results from physical-capacity testing in which lifting ability is compared
with the lifting requirements of the job were correlated with the incidence of work
injury. The application of appropriate postoffer, preplacement testing is a cost-
effective method to lower the incidence of work-related injuries.

Gross discussed concerns about what FCE really measure (Gross, 2004). Although
raters' judgments about a patient's maximum performance during FCE appear
reliable, FCEs do not appear to be purely tests of physical capacity because many
personal and environmental factors affect the patient's performance. FCEs are most
accurately considered behavioral tests influenced by many factors, including physical
ability, beliefs, and perceptions, and the results should be interpreted within the
subject's broad personal and environmental context.

In a comparison of the ERGOS Work Simulator and the Ergo-Kit), researchers
concluded that the concurrent validity for lifting between was poor for both FCE
methods (Rustenburg, 2004).

Factors that affect performance on FCE

In 2003, Geisser discussed the effect of psychosocial factors on FCEs, stating
"Psychosocial factors have been found to have a significant impact on functional
activity, particularly among persons with chronic pain. Although various systems
have been developed to assess functional limitations through functional capacity
evaluation (FCE), assessment of psychosocial factors that may impact function have
been largely ignored. This paper examines the existing literature on psychosocial
factors and FCE performance. Given that there are few studies that have directly
addressed this issue, the paper also examines psychosocial factors that have been
found to influence function in persons with pain. The results of the literature review
indicate that few psychosocial factors have been found to be directly associated with
FCE and functional measures, although many are related to various measures of

The strongest evidence that psychosocial factors are related to functional
performance is based on the studies examining the association between functional
activity and pain-related fear, self-efficacy, and illness behavior. Psychosocial factors
have also been shown to influence measures of sincerity of effort often obtained
during FCE" (Geisser, 2003).

Perception of the patient also influences performance on FCEs. In 2005, Good,
discussed factors that influence performance on FCEs. "Only the PDI (Pain Disability
Index), pain intensity, age, and sex independently contributed to floor-to-waist lift
performance. The PDI, pain intensity, and duration of injury contributed to the
number of failed tasks. The results indicate that performance on FCEs is influenced
by physical factors, perceptions of disability, and pain intensity. However,
perceptions of workplace organizational policies and procedures were not associated
with FCE results for workers' compensation claimants with chronic back pain
disability. FCEs should be considered behavioral tests influenced by multiple factors,
including physical ability, beliefs, and perceptions" (Good, 2005).


The medical-service delivery system must adjust to the influences of managed care,
HMO programs, and insurance capitation policies to control expenditures for medical
benefits. Physicians must diversify into markets that they have not approached or
even considered, given the current practice and business trends. The market for
forensic services is thriving and seeks physicians to provide impairment ratings,
IMEs, and FCEs to meet the escalating demand in personal-injury and product-
liability litigation. The practicing physician may not know the FCE process, but it is
one that effectively addresses the issue of disability and helps in identifying the
functional deficits and capabilities of a patient with disability.

Almost as many manual disability-evaluation protocols exist as computerized
disability-evaluation systems. The clinician is cautioned to approach FCE practice by
first choosing a protocol that meets the scrutiny of the judicial system and by then
selecting the FCE system that is flexible in accepting the chosen FCE protocol.

    IMPAIRMENT RATING GUIDES                                                         Section 4 of 11
Author Information Introduction To Impairment And Disability Evaluation Concepts In Disability Evaluation Impairment Rating
Guides Impairment Rating Examples Example Of Disability Evaluation Legal And Other Issues Of Impairment Rating And
Disability Evaluation Psychiatric Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Sample Deposition Questions On
Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Pictures Bibliography

Many states and jurisdictions have statutory requirements requiring the use of
specific evaluation systems or guides to determine a permanent impairment rating
(PIR) due to accident or injury. Some systems incorporate a disability schedule to
supplement or complement the impairment-rating schedule. Many states place
restrictions on which clinicians can provide impairment ratings. In Florida, for
example, chiropractic physicians may issue ratings, but psychologists may not.

Although the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) currently does not
provide certification in impairment and disability evaluation, other organizations do.
Certification for impairment rating may be obtained from the NADEP and the
American Academy of Disability Evaluating Physicians (AADEP). These
organizations provide education, training, and certification in impairment rating and
related issues. Both organizations provide instruction by physicians and other
healthcare professionals about impairment and disability-related issues.

Although certification is not required, if the healthcare professional foresees
performing a substantial number of impairment rating evaluations, attendance at
courses on the evaluation process is suggested. Disability medicine is the most likely
of all areas of medicine to involve attorneys. Completion of a training course with
certification by the AADEP or the NADEP increases the likelihood of a successful
forensic experience.

Examples of guides include the following: the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of the
Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5th edition, 1999 (order from the AMA.), the
1996 FUPIRS, the Minnesota Disability Schedule, and the California Workers'
Compensation Rating System.

Some states permit physicians to render impairment ratings based solely on their
own experience and observation. This system presents a classic dichotomy between
statutory permissiveness and scientific reliability (see Daubert v Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 (l993).

        IMPAIRMENT RATING EXAMPLES                                                                                   Section 5 of 11
 Author Information Introduction To Impairment And Disability Evaluation Concepts In Disability Evaluation Impairment Rating Guides Impairment Rating Examples
 Example Of Disability Evaluation Legal And Other Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Psychiatric Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability
 Evaluation Sample Deposition Questions On Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Pictures Bibliography

Impairment ratings have been calculated by using 2 systems. Eleven case examples and solutions are included here as
examples. For specific cases, actual guides must be used. Further resources can be found at,
where Florida's system is discussed extensively.

Case 1. Shoulder impingement

A 37-year-old right-handed worker presents with impingement syndrome of the left shoulder. Examination of the left shoulder
shows moderate crepitation with limited active ROM (AROM), as follows: left shoulder flexion 100°, abduction 90°, internal
rotation 60°, and external rotation 60°. Radiography shows arthritic changes in the acromioclavicular joint of the left shoulder.
MRI shows impingement of the left shoulder (referred to here as the UE).

         Solution A (FUPIRS by ROM)
              o 3/46 (Table 14, see Image 18) Flexion 100° = 5% UE
              o 3/48 (Table 16, see Image 18) Abduction 90° = 7% UE
              o 3/49 (Table 17, see Image 18) Internal rotation 60° = 0% UE
              o 3/49 (Table 17, see Image 18) External rotation 60° = 5% UE = 17% UE
              o Intro/6 Rule 2. Subtract 10% for nonpreferred arm.
              o 17% UE - (17% UE X 10%) = 15% UE
              o 3/58 (Table 21 see Image 18) 15% UE = 9% whole person (WP)
         Solution B (FUPIRS by diagnosis)
              o 3/50 Impairment because of other disorders of UE
              o 3/50 (Table 18, see Image 18) Shoulder AC joint maximum 30% UE X 3/51 joint crepitation 20% = 6.0% UE
              o 3/58 (Table 21, see Image 18) Convert UE to WP 6.0% UE = 4.0% WP
         Solution C (AMA Guides by ROM)
              o 3/43 (Figure 38) Flexion 100° = 5% UE
              o 3/44 (Figure 41) Abduction 90° = 4% UE
              o 3/45 (Figure 44) Internal rotation 60° = 2% UE
              o 3/45 (Figure 44) External rotation 60° = 0% UE = 11% UE
              o 3/20 (Table 3) Convert UE to WP 11% UE = 7% WP
         Solution D (AMA Guides by diagnosis)
              o 3/58 Impairment because of other disorders of the UE
            o   3/58 (Table 18) Shoulder AC joint maximum 25% UE X 3/59 (Table 19) joint crepitation 20% = 5.0% UE
            o   3/20 (Table 3) Convert UE to WP 5.0% UE = 3.0% WP

Case 2. Shoulder arthroplasty

A 35-year-old right-handed man presents with right shoulder impingement after arthroscopic surgical acromioplasty (ie,
arthroplasty). Examination shows a tender subdeltoid region with slight pain and constant moderate crepitation during AROM.
The patient has full active and passive ROM. (Note: Calculations are performed with and without the surgical option.)

       Solution A (FUPIRS by ROM) results in impairment = 0% WP
       Solution B (FUPIRS by diagnosis, if no surgery is performed)
            o 3/50 (Table 18, see Image 18) Shoulder - acromioclavicular maximum 30% UE
            o 3/51 Joint crepitation - moderate 20% joint
            o Multiply 30% UE X 20% = 6% UE
            o 3/58 (Table 21, see Image 18) Convert UE to WP 6% UE = 4% WP
       Solution C (FUPIRS by diagnosis, if surgery is performed)
            o 3/54 (Table 20, see Image 18) Shoulder resection arthroplasty 24% UE
            o 3/58 (Table 21, see Image 18) Convert UE to WP 24% UE = 14% WP
       Solution D (AMA Guides by ROM): Impairment = 0% WP.
       Solution E (AMA Guides by diagnosis, if no surgery)
            o 3/58 (Table 18) Shoulder - acromioclavicular maximum is 25% UE.
            o 3/59 Joint crepitation - moderate 20% joint
            o Multiply 25% UE X 20% = 6% UE
            o 3/20 (Table 3) Convert UE to WP 5% UE = 3% WP
       Solution F (AMA Guides by diagnosis, if surgery performed)
            o 3/61 (Table 27) Shoulder - resection arthroplasty 10% UE
            o 3/20 (Table 3) Convert UE to WP 10% UE = 6% WP

Case 3. Elbow epicondylitis

A 25-year-old male worker presents with chronic left lateral epicondylitis. He is left handed, and his condition has failed to
improve with conservative treatment. He has not undergone surgery. Examination shows mild painful crepitation in the left
lateral epicondylar region. AROM of the left elbow is noted with extension 0°, flexion 130°, pronation 70°, and supination 80°.
Radiography of the left elbow shows calcification of the lateral epicondylar region.

       Solution A (FUPIRS by ROM)
            o 3/44 (Table 12, see Image 18) Extension 0° = 0% UE
            o 3/44 (Table 12, see Image 18) Flexion 130° = 5% UE
            o 3/45 (Table 13, see Image 18) Pronation 70°= 2% UE
            o 3/45 (Table 13, see Image 18) Supination 80° = 0% UE = 7% UE
            o 3/58 (Table 21, see Image 18) Convert UE to WP 7% UE = 4% WP
       Solution B (FUPIRS by diagnosis)
            o 3/50 Impairment because of other disorders of the UE
            o 3/50 (Table 18, see Image 18) Elbow proximal radioulnar maximum 20% UE X 3/51 joint crepitation 10% = 2%
            o 3/58 (Table 21, see Image 18) Convert UE to WP 2% UE = 1% WP
       Solution C (AMA Guides by ROM)
            o 3/40 (Figure 32) Extension 0° = 0% UE
            o 3/40 (Figure 32) Flexion 130° = 1% UE
            o 3/41 (Figure 35) Pronation 70° = 1% UE
            o 3/41 (Figure 35) Supination 80° = 0% UE = 2% UE
            o 3/20 (Table 3) Convert UE to WP 2% UE = 1% WP
       Solution D (AMA Guides by diagnosis)
            o 3/58 Impairment because of other disorders of the UE
            o 3/58 (Table 18) Elbow proximal radioulnar maximum 20% UE X 3/59 (Table 19) joint crepitation 10% = 2% UE
            o 3/20 (Table 3) Convert UE to WP 2% UE = 1% WP

Case 4. Carpal tunnel syndrome

A 40-year-old right-handed woman presents after undergoing surgery in the right wrist for carpal tunnel syndrome. Examination
shows normal motor strength with manual muscle testing of the right hand, including median nerve innervated muscles.
Sensation is reduced, which interferes with activity of right median nerve distribution. EMG shows mild dropout of motor units
with needle electrode findings in right abductor pollicis brevis, not first dorsal interosseous. Nerve-conduction study (shows mild
slowing and right median sensory distal latency.

       Solution A (FUPIRS by neurologic examination)
            o 5/84 Specific UE nerve
            o Median below mid forearm
            o Maximum for function from sensory deficit or pain = 40%
            o Maximum for function from motor/strength deficit = 35%
            o 5/87 Determination of pain or loss of sensation - grade 3 = 16-30%
            o 5/88 Determination of strength (power) and/or motor deficit - grade 2 = 1-40%
            o Therefore calculate as follows: Sensory loss 40% X 16-30% = 6-12% UE and motor loss 35% X 1-40% = 4-14%
            o 15/189 Combine minimum 6% with 4% = 10% UE. Combine maximum 14% with 12% = 24% UE
            o 3/58 (Table 21, see Image 18) Convert UE to WP 10-24% UE = 6-14% WP
       Solution B (FUPIRS by diagnosis)
            o 5/85 Entrapment neuropathy table
            o Mild = 10% UE moderate = 25% UE
            o 3/58 (Table 21, see Image 18) Convert UE to WP
            o For mild 10% UE = 6% WP
            o For moderate 25% UE = 15% WP
       Solution C (AMA Guides by neurologic examination)
            o 3/54 (Table 15) Specific UE nerve
            o Median below mid forearm
            o Maximum for function because of sensory deficit or pain = 38%
            o Maximum for function because of motor/strength deficit = 10%
            o 3/48 (Table 11) Determination of loss of sensation +/- pain or 4/151 (Table 20) Neurologic section for sensory
                loss or pain
            o Grade 3 = 26-60%
            o 3/49 (Table 12) Determination of strength/power/motor deficit or 4/151 (Table 21) Neurologic section for
                strength deficit
            o Grade 4 = 1-25%
            o Therefore, calculate as follows: Sensory loss 38% X 26-60% = 10-22% UE and Motor loss 10% X 1-25% = 0-
                3% UE
            o P.322. Combine minimum 10% c/w 0% = 10% UE maximum 22% c/w 3% = 24% UE
            o 3/20 (Table 3) Convert UE to WP 10-24% UE = 6-14% WP
       Solution D (AMA Guides by diagnosis)
            o 3/57 (Table 16) Entrapment neuropathy
            o Mild = 10% UE moderate = 20% UE
            o 3/20 (Table 3) Convert UE to WP
            o For mild 10% UE = 6% WP
            o For moderate 20% UE = 12% WP

Case 5. Hip degenerative joint disease

A 65-year-old man presents with moderate degenerative joint disease of the right hip after hip fracture. Examination shows mild
antalgic gait, and the patient uses a cane for only outdoor ambulation. AROM of the right hip is normal, and the right leg is 1 in.
shorter than left. Radiography shows moderate degenerative joint disease with a 3-mm cartilage interval for the right hip.

       Solution A (FUPIRS by leg-length discrepancy)
            o 4/71 (Table 42, see Image 18) Leg 1 in. shorter 10% LE
            o 4/71 (Table 42, see Image 18) Convert LE to WP 10% LE = 4% WP
       Solution B (FUPIRS by diagnosis)
            o 4/69 Other disorders of hip, arthritis 10% LE
            o 4/71 (Table 42, see Image 18) Convert LE to WP 10% LE = 4% WP
       Solution C (AMA Guides by leg-length discrepancy)
            o 3/75 (Table 35) Leg 1 in. shorter 5% LE
            o 3/75 Convert LE to WP 5% X 0.4 = 2% WP
       Solution D (AMA Guides by gait derangement): 3/76 (Table 36) Mild category C 15% WP
       Solution E (AMA Guides by diagnosis)
            o 3/83 (Table 62) Cartilage interval 3 mm 7% LE
            o 3/75 Convert LE to WP 7% X 0.4 = 3% WP

Case 6. Hip bursitis

A 40-year-old woman presents with chronic bursitis of the greater trochanter of the right hip. Examination shows local
tenderness with a trigger point at the right greater trochanter. Full active and passive ROM of the hip demonstrates pain
reproduction on resisted abduction and an antalgic gait in the right LE if she walks longer than 30 minutes. The patient does not
require the use of an assistive device.

       Solution A (FUPIRS by ROM) - Impairment = 0% WP
       Solution B (FUPIRS by diagnosis)
            o 2/28 Painful organic syndrome hip 4% LE
            o 4/71 (Table 42, see Image 18) Convert LE to WP 4% LE = 2% WP
       Solution C (AMA Guides by ROM or gait derangement - Impairment = 0% WP
       Solution D (AMA Guides by diagnosis)
            o 3/85 (Table 64) Hip trochanteric bursitis 7% LE
            o 3/75 Convert LE to WP 7% LE X 0.4 = 3% WP

Case 7. Knee-cartilage injury

A 25-year-old man presents with a tear of the medial meniscus tear in his right knee after partial medial meniscectomy. After
rehabilitation, he continues to have knee pain, locking, swelling, and mild effusion. Examination shows that AROM of the right
knee is 0° (full extension) to 130° flexion. Strength on manual muscle testing is grade 4/5 (extension/flexion) for the knee.
Atrophy is 2 cm in the right calf and thigh compared with the left, and his gait is antalgic on the right leg. Radiographs show
moderate degenerative changes of the right knee with a 3-mm cartilage interval.

       Solution A (FUPIRS by ROM)
            o 4/68 (Table 35, see Image 18) 130° flex = 7% LE
            o 4/71 (Table 42, see Image 18) Convert LE to WP 7% LE = 3% WP
       Solution B (FUPIRS by diagnosis)
            o 4/68 (Table 36, see Image 18) Other disorders of knee 5% LE arthritis
            o 4/71 (Table 42, see Image 18) Convert LE to WP 5% LE = 2% WP
       Solution C (AMA Guides by ROM) - 3/78 (Table 41) Not less than 110° flexion 0%
       Solution D (AMA Guides by gait derangement) - 3/76 (Table 36) Mild Category A. 7% WP
       Solution E (AMA Guides by atrophy)
            o 3/77 (Table 37) Mild/moderate category 8% LE
            o 3/75 Convert LE to WP 8% X 0.4 = 3% WP
       Solution F (AMA Guides by strength deficit)
            o 3/77 (Table 38-39) Grade 4 = 12% LE
            o 3/75 Convert LE to WP 12% X 0.4 = 5% WP
       Solution G (AMA Guides by diagnosis)
            o 3/85 (Table 64) Partial meniscectomy 2% LE
            o 3/84 Combine with arthritis and ROM impairment if any (weakness and atrophy are combined in diagnosis-
                based estimates, ie, for meniscectomy).
            o 3/83 (Table 62) 3-mm cartilage interval 3% LE
            o 3/78 (Table 41) Not less than 110° flexion 0%
            o P. 322. Combine 3% LE with 2% LE = 5% LE
            o 3/75 Convert LE to WP 5% LE X 0.4 = 2% WP

Case 8. Knee arthroplasty

A 62-year-old woman presents with a knee injury, aggravating severe degenerative joint disease of the left knee. Patient has
undergone left total knee arthroplasty with no pain after surgery. She has stable anteroposterior and mediolateral motion. She
has no flexion contracture, no extension lag, and normal alignment. Examination shows well-healed left knee surgical scar, mild
effusion of left knee, and left knee AROM/passive ROM (PROM) of 0-100°. Patient can ambulate with routine use of cane but
does not require a brace. Radiography shows left total knee arthroplasty.

       Solution A (FUPIRS by ROM)
            o 4/68 (Table 35, see Image 18) Flexion 100° = 18% LE
            o 4/71 (Table 42, see Image 18) Convert LE to WP 18% LE = 7% WP
       Solution B (FUPIRS by diagnosis)
            o 4/68 (Table 36, see Image 18) Knee replacement arthroplasty 10-30% LE
            o 4/71 (Table 42, see Image 18) Convert LE to WP 10-30% LE = 4-12% WP
       Solution C (AMA Guides by ROM)
            o 3/78 (Table 41) Knee ROM impairment <110° = 10% LE
            o 3/75 Convert LE to WP 10% LE X 0.4 = 4% WP
       Solution D (AMA Guides by gait derangement): 3/76 Table 36. Gait-Moderate category "e" 20% WP
       Solution E (AMA Guides by diagnosis)
            o 3/88 (Table 66) Knee replacement results: a = 50 points; b = 20 points; c = 0 points; d = 0 points; e = 0 points; f
                = 0 points
            o a + b + c - (d + e + f) = 70 points
            o   3/85 (Table 64) Knee replacement impairment
            o   Fair result category 50% LE
            o   3/75 Convert LE to WP 50% LE X 0.4 = 20% WP

Case 9. Reflex sympathetic dystrophy

A 45-year-old right-handed woman presents with history of severe stretch injury in the left brachial plexus. She as residual,
severe reflex sympathetic dystrophy of her left arm, with causalgia and complex regional-pain syndrome. Examination shows an
atrophic left arm and forearm with cold, clammy, dusky, shiny skin. No AROM is noted at the shoulder, elbow, wrist, or hand.
PROM shows clinically significant guarding, but it is generally restricted. Contractures are noted in the shoulder, elbow, wrist,
and hand, but the examiner cannot establish consistent measurements with a goniometer because of guarding. Pulses are +2
and equal for both radial and ulnar arteries.

No voluntary motion more than trace motion is noted in the patient's entire left UE. Sensation is noted in the left UE, with
hyperpathia and allodynia. EMG and nerve-conduction studies are performed. EMG of the left arm shows decreased insertional
activity and poor recruitment of motor units. Nerve-conduction study of the left arm is impossible of pain. Radiography shows
evidence of osteopenia in the left arm.

       Solution A (FUPIRS by diagnosis)
            o 2/29 Reflex sympathetic dystrophy UE 25% UE
            o Intro/6 Basic rule 2 subtract 10% for nonpreferred arm 25% UE - 2.5% UE = 22.5% UE = 23% UE
            o 3/58 Convert UE to WP 23% UE = 24% WP
       Solution B (AMA Guides by diagnosis)
            o 3/56 Causalgia and reflex sympathetic dystrophy 4 100% UE
            o 3/18 (Figure 2) Impairment for amputation 100% UE = 60% WP or 3/20 (Table 3) Convert UE to WP 100% UE
                = 60% WP

Case 10. Lumbosacral strain

A 29-year-old man presents with chronic lumbosacral strain, no numbness or weakness of LEs, and no loss of bladder or bowel
function. Examination shows spasms and rigidity on palpation in the lumbosacral paraspinal muscles. Restricted flexion-
extension lumbosacral ROM is noted, but readings are inconsistent with those obtained with an inclinometer or goniometer.
Neurologic examination of the lower extremity is normal, showing no weakness or atrophy. Deep tendon reflexes are normal
with no sensory loss. Radiographic and MRI findings in the lumbosacral spine are normal.

       Solution A (FUPIRS by diagnosis)
            o 1/12 Intervertebral disk or other soft tissue lesions
            o Lumbar spine = 3% WP
       Solution B (AMA Guides by diagnosis)
            o 3/109 (Table 71) 1 Guarding/dysmetria is present.
            o 3/102 diagnosis-related estimate (DRE) lumbosacral category II: minor impairment 5% WP

Case 11. Lumbosacral herniated nucleus pulposus with radiculopathy

A 45-year-old man with L4-5 herniated nucleus pulposus presents after single-level laminectomy, discectomy, and fusion
surgery. His symptoms include continued back pain and sciatica of the right leg. Numbness noted in the L5 distribution of the
right leg does not interfere with his function. Mild weakness of the right leg is noted, but the patient can ambulate without use of
cane. He has difficulty sleeping because of pain when he lies supine.

Examination shows rigidity and a surgical scar over the lumbosacral region. AROM/PROM of the thoracolumbosacral spine in
all planes are normal, though values on straight-leg raising and inclinometry are inconsistent. On straight-leg raising, positive
findings are noted on the right side are in the when the patient is supine but not when he is seated. Strength of the right great
toe and right ankle dorsiflexor is 4/5, no atrophy of the calf musculature is noted.

Testing of the deep tendon reflexes an absent right medial hamstrings reflex. Sensation is decreased to pain in the right L5
distribution. Gait analysis shows an antalgic pattern in the right leg. Presurgical radiography of the lumbosacral spine shows
spondylosis at L4-L5. Presurgical MRI shows herniated nucleus pulposus at L4-5 on the right. After surgery, lumbosacral MRI
shows evidence of gad fusion and scarring at L4-L5. EMG shows active right L5 radiculopathy before surgery and chronic, mild
right L5 radiculopathy after surgery.

       Solution A (FUPIRS)
            o 1/13 Intervertebral disk 5 lumbar 7% WP
            o 1/13 Intervertebral disk 8 fusion add 1% WP
            o 7% WP + 1% WP = 8% WP
              o 5/85 Spinal nerve, LE L5 nerve root maximum loss sensory 5.0% maximum loss motor 37%
              o 5/87 Grade 2 sensory loss 1-15% (use 15%)
              o 5/88 Grade 2 motor 1-40% (use 30%)
              o Sensory 5% X 15% = 1.0% LE
              o Motor 37% X 30% = 11% LE
              o 15/189 Combine 11% LE c/w 1% LE = 12% LE
              o 4/71 Table 42, see Image 18) Convert 12% LE = 5% WP
              o 15/189 Combine 8% WP + 5 % WP = 13 % WP
         Solution B (AMA Guides by DRE model): 3/110 (Table 72) DRE lumbosacral category III 10% WP
         Solution C (AMA Guides by ROM model) (see 3/99)
              o 3/113 (Table 75) Disorder category II E 10% WP
              o 3/130 (Table 83) Spinal nerve, LE L5 nerve root maximum loss sensory 5.0% maximum loss motor 37%
              o 4/151 (Table 20) Class 2 sensory loss 1-25% (use 25%)
              o 4/151 (Table 21) Grade 4 motor 1-25% (use 25%)
              o Sensory 5% X 25% = 1.0% LE
              o Motor 37% X 25% = 9.0% LE
              o P. 322. Combine 9.0% LE combine with 1.0% LE = 10% LE
              o 3/75 Convert LE to WP 10% LE X 0.4 = 4.0% WP
              o P. 322 Combine 10% WP c/w 4.0% WP = 14% WP
              o 3/99 ROM to DRE 14% WP closest to DRE lumbosacral category III
              o DRE lumbosacral Category III = 10% WP

No additional impairment is added for disturbed sleep because of pain or discomfort in supine position. No impairment is
included for fusion with loss of ROM of the lumbosacral spine.

        EXAMPLE OF DISABILITY EVALUATION                                                        Section 6 of 11

 Author Information Introduction To Impairment And Disability Evaluation Concepts In Disability Evaluation Impairment
 Rating Guides Impairment Rating Examples Example Of Disability Evaluation Legal And Other Issues Of Impairment
 Rating And Disability Evaluation Psychiatric Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Sample Deposition
 Questions On Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Pictures Bibliography

The following case study is from a FCE by using the NADEP protocols. The testing components of this particular example
include intake patient screening, grip-strength testing, ROM and strength studies, and dynamic-lifting evaluation. These
components were observed as May and Martelli outlined and emphasize the need for the examining physician to review all
physiologic aspects, as well as the potential psychological response.

History taking

This history was collected during intake screening, the first component of the model.

The examinee had an open, grade 3C fracture left tibia due to a fall at work. He was immediately transported to a trauma
center. He underwent irrigation and debridement of the left ankle and external fixation of the left distal tibia. He remained in the
hospital for approximately 1 week. He stated that he was given instruction on how to use crutches before he was discharged.
He was advised to return to his orthopedic physician for follow-up and treatment on a weekly basis. This schedule continued for
approximately 4 months, and then he saw his orthopedic surgeon once a month.

During the 4-month period, he was hospitalize twice for additional surgery: repeat irrigation and debridement of the left tibial
pilon fracture with closure of the ankle wounds took place and later open reduction internal fixation of the left distal tibia and
irrigation and debridement of the medial ankle wound with removal of the external fixator.

The patient then began formal physical therapy and aquatic therapy. At present, he is continuing home aquatic therapy by using
the pool at his local YMCA. He will next begin therapy to evaluate progress with his home program with a visit schedule of once
a week.

The patient's medications are celecoxib (Celebrex) 100 mg bid and acetaminophen and hydrocodone (Lortab 500/7.5 mg). He
states that he had no prior medical injuries or disabilities related to his work or personal life.

Additional information that is collected but not reported here included the patient's educational level, family history, support
system, financial situation (ie, whether he receives disability income or whether he has no income [The amount is not
important.]), and vocational history in the previous 15 years.
Patient profiling

The examiner administers the second component, patient profiling. At this point, the examiner learns how the patient is coping
with his disability, how well he has adjusted to the disability period, if the patient is exaggerating symptoms, and if the individual
is reporting systemic or localized profile.

The patient completes a symptom chart (see Image 2). (This chart is specific to the injury and locations of any surgical incisions,
and it presenting a localized profile.) The information is encouraging because it suggests that the patient has some control over
his symptom-response patterns in response to daily activities and that no other anatomic locations are involved. The patient's
rehabilitation potential may be good, but no opinion can be given confidently without a review of all profiling and functional data.
Reviewing the form in Image 2 can help in identifying a possible trend.

Changes in activity rating

Image 3 shows the changes in activity rating. As much control as the symptom chart suggested, the patient's activities indicates
a more substantial effect of his disability. The findings are this chart a notable, and suggest that the effect on his activities is
directly related to the diagnosis. Had the patient described substantial changes in the first 2 senses (ie, hearing and vision), the
examiner would flag this complaint as a possible sign of exaggeration of symptoms. One item that was not expected was the
last one, material handling. This finding should alert the examiner to look for significant deficit profiling in the remaining test
activities, as this item was not related to the affected area and/or diagnosis.

Image 4 graphically depicts the patient's symptomatic response to physical activities as he progresses through the evaluation
process. His pretest, resting discomfort levels are documented, and his performance and behavior are monitored from that point
until the end of the last test item. The patient demonstrated some control and management of symptoms until he engaged in the
dynamic lifting and carrying activities, which stressed his affected extremity the most.

Summary of history and patient profile

At this point, the patient's response to the activities, his ability to participate in the test activities, and his overall functional
responses are summarized in the report.

The following text is quoted from page 6 of the report:

"To summarize, Mr. [Examinee] demonstrated an ability to negotiate his symptoms, or an ability to manage and control his
symptoms until functional activity was applied to his lower extremity. He exhibited mechanical/strength deficits in ROM and
dynamic activities. Regarding the dynamic lifting study, he completed the WEST lifting evaluation but the crate carrying activity
was waived due to his lower extremity weakness and mechanical dysfunction. Based on the medical records and the
Examinee's performance on this functional study, it is this evaluator's opinion that the Examinee can function independently in
the competitive labor market without accommodation at the LIGHT physical exertional demand level. He requires
accommodation when functioning at the MEDIUM to HEAVY physical demand levels."

Additional questioning

At this point, the examiner is asked 4 questions:

    1. Did the examinee complete all of the assigned activities?
    2. Was the examinee consistent in all activities per the repeated measures testing protocol?
    3. Did the examinee manage and control his symptoms adequately such that he could perform work independently in the
       competitive labor market?
    4. What is the maximum physical demand level this individual can perform safely while maintaining acceptable production

Grip-strength study

The next component is the grip-strength study. The graph in Image 7 shows a good, symmetric strength pattern between the
right and left hands. This component is not used to investigate strength output. Instead, this component helps the examiner
obtain an impression of how the patient will perform during the rest of the examination. Will he or she be inconsistent? Will he or
she display overt pain behaviors when engaged in activity? Will he or she complain of unrelated symptoms? In this case, the
examiner can conclude that the patient had a good effort, given the symmetric output of the patterns and that repeated
measures were within acceptable variances.

ROM and systems review

The next component is the ROM and systems review and physical examination when the patient is measured for joint ROM and
strength in the UEs and LEs. The patient undergoes thorough musculoskeletal and neurologic examination.

This examinee was tested for strength discrepancies between the affected and unaffected legs. Repeated measurements were
collected to determine the reliability of data among trials. Images 10-11 show his strength output. The patient's left LE, the
affected extremity, constantly performed at a level below that of the right. His repeated demonstrated good reliability of effort
between and among trials. Because no normative data exist, the examiner used this technique to determine the patient's
consistency of performance and to document any notable strength deficits.

Images 10-11 show how the tests were administered. In the NADEP model, these digital images are used in reports, for obvious
reasons. Because forensic disability is being assessed, attorneys from both sides need to know what was done and how the
data were collected.

Static-strength testing

Next is the static strength component, which was not performed in this case study. Because strength data were obtained in the
ROM component, this one was waived.

Dynamic lifting

The final component is dynamic lifting. Domain testing was not administered because the examiner already had sufficient data
to render an opinion on the patient's work capability. Therefore, work-simulation activities were not necessary.

In the dynamic-lifting component, stationary lifting system (WEST Evaluation System) was used. Before dynamic study, the
patient's lifting mechanics and his maximum lifting weight were determined by using the pretest lifting-evaluation protocol May
and Martelli cited (1999). The patient was observed to compensate for his mechanical deficits (Image 12). He holds his left leg
higher than his right, suggesting that his weight-bearing capacity is greater on the right leg than on the left. Images 13-14 show
his maximum upper and lower lifting ranges. The examiner is looking for any compensatory mechanics on these images.

Image 15 shows the swelling in the left LE that the patient reported as being problematic in his functioning and overall symptom

Images 16-17 demonstrate the patient's cumulative lifting in terms of the weight carried in foot-pounds, as well as his heart rate
and blood pressure before and after the test. This information is crucial because it documents the patient's effort the in the lifting
exercises and his vital-sign responses. For example, if the patient's heart rate does not increase and if he or she demonstrates
substantial pain and response, the examiner suspect the person's overall effort in the test. The patient in this case demonstrated
good effort.


Images 5-6 show the method for summarizing the examinee's functional performance, including how his performance was
documented and what competitive functional levels are recommended. Image 6 shows a summary if his dynamic
lifting/materials handling capabilities. In this case, the examinee was rated being as capable of performing lifting considered in
the heavy category, but only with modifications to his work setting, specifically, to his vertical work plane.


Conclusions are summarized under the NADEP heading vocational implications. This section indicates the physical demand
level or characteristic, as the US Department of Labor defines it. In this, case the rating for physical demand characteristic was
awarded from the restricted and unrestricted vertical and/or horizontal work planes.

The final comments address workplace considerations. Here, the examiner outlines the specific physical activity restrictions,
such as those applied to bending, kneeling, stooping, standing, walking, and climbing. The individual's likelihood of being placed
in a suitable job and his or her overall likelihood of employment may be addressed as well.

The conclusion in this case is quoted below.

Vocational Implications:

Based on the US Department of Labor definitions for WORK and accompanying physical exertion demand levels, it is this
examiner's conclusion that the examinee qualifies for the HEAVY work category within the restricted work plane, provided that
the work criteria, as presented in Tables 1 and 2, are integrated into any return-to-work considerations. When considering the
competitive unrestricted vertical and horizontal work planes, the examinee qualifies for the LIGHT work category.
Work Place Considerations:

Mr. Chenault manipulated weight at a level that qualifies him for the HEAVY physical demand characteristic under the
Department of Labor definition of work. However, what this resistance level does not detail is his lack of tolerance and stability
for moving this weight level from point "A" to point "B". His left lower extremity demonstrated significant atrophy when
circumference measurements were taken and his strength patterns were significantly weaker than the right. Thus, while he can
manipulate a maximum of 50 pounds from a standing position, this is not a true measure of work performance, or the ability to
manipulate the weight in terms of carrying and stacking. Thus, it is highly recommended that Mr. Chenault be removed from
activities that require repetitive kneeling, stooping, squatting/crouching, walking and climbing stairs and/or ladders.

This gentleman would benefit from an active job placement and development program at this time, as he should begin focusing
on return-to-work options and strategies. I conclude that his returning to carpentry work or related fields with similar work
demands is poor and guarded at best, regardless of physical rehabilitation efforts. He is a highly motivated individual and I
strongly believe that he wants to become gainfully employed as soon as possible.

Thank you for allowing me to evaluate your patient.

Sincerely yours,

V. Robert May III, Rh.D., CDE II Certified Disability Examiner

    LEGAL AND OTHER ISSUES OF IMPAIRMENT RATING AND                                                                         Section 7 of 11
 Author Information Introduction To Impairment And Disability Evaluation Concepts In Disability Evaluation Impairment Rating Guides Impairment Rating Examples
 Example Of Disability Evaluation Legal And Other Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Psychiatric Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability
 Evaluation Sample Deposition Questions On Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Pictures Bibliography


What is a PIR?

Case law discusses a PIR as an anatomic or functional abnormality or loss that a physician establishes and rates. (Escambia County Council
on Aging v Goldsmith, 500 So2d 626 [1st DCA l987]). Judges and courts throughout the nation have generally accepted this definition.

In the worker's-compensation system in Florida, as in many other states, impairment ratings determine specific benefits the claimant can
receive. For example, a 7% PIR may mean that the claimant receives benefits for 7 weeks. The Florida Supreme Court has upheld the fact
that benefits are tied to impairment ratings and not disability (Bradley v Hurricane Restaurant, 670 So2d l62 [Fla l996]).

What can be rated?

The PIR can originate only from a compensable injury (Murphy v NE Drywall, 692 SO2d 9l8 [l997]).

Who can typically give PIRs?

Medical doctors, osteopathic physicians, chiropractic physicians, optometrists, dentists, and psychologists can make PIRs. Some states, such
as Florida, restrict the medical specialists who may assign ratings.

Can the impairment rating include subjective evidence?

Yes. Ratings are usually based on both objective and subjective information. Subjective complaints include pain, numbness, and depression.
The practitioner cannot ignore these complaints when determining an impairment rating.

The best example of the use of scientific evidence is found in the case of Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 (l993),
which demonstrated that certain factors may bear on the judge's determination about the admissibility of scientific data. Considerations
included (1) whether a "theory or technique can be (and has been) tested"; (2) whether it "has been subjected to peer review and publication";
(3) whether, in respect to a particular technique, the "known or potential rate of error" is high and whether "standards controlling the
technique's operation" are established; and (4) whether the theory or technique enjoys "general acceptance" within a "relevant scientific
community" (509 US at 592-594). The Federal Rules of Evidence, as well as many state courts, have adopted this decision.

The US Supreme Court recently extended the Daubert philosophy to nonmedical experts (Kumho Tire Company, LTD, et al, Petitioners v
Patrick Carmichael et al, 526 US l37 [l999]). The fact that a practitioner assigns an impairment rating does not mean that it is admissible. The
rating must be scientifically based and must rely on a disability guide with a proven record.

When should the patient be rated?

The impairment rating should occur at MMI, the point at which further recovery from or lasting improvement too an injury or disease can no
longer be anticipated on the basis of reasonable medical probability. The PIR is given when the claimant has an injury (Murphy v NE Drywall,
692 SO2d 9l8 [l997]).

When should a PIR be documented?

The examiner should not wait rating until after completing all reports to document an impairment. By then, it may be too late.

A recent decision precluded an expert from testifying about to PIR on the witness stand (Auto Owners Insurance Co and Roberts v Clark, 676
So2d 3 [4th DCA 96]). In this case, the court held that the neurosurgeon could not give testimony regarding an impairment rating because his
observations would have been based on a treatment session after the cutoff date for discovery. This ruling is intended to prevent 1 party from
having an unfair advantage of surprise over the other.

For example the defense team hires an examiner who renders a report, the plaintiff prepares for the hearing on the basis of the contents of the
report. If the examiner arrives at trial and changes his or her diagnosis, the judge may strike all of the testimony as being inconsistent with the
initial report if the examiner's testimony is a surprise and if it was developed after the cutoff date for discovery.

Is the test scientific in a forensic environment?

In a forensic environment, when FCEs are frequently used, scientific nature of the test may be questioned.

The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 [1993] and progeny, in
conjunction with Federal Rule of Evidence 702, define the Court's gatekeeping function in relation to the admissibility of proposed scientific
and other expert testimony.

Rule 702 states, ―If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a
fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an
opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods,
and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.‖

Under Rule 702, a district court must first determine whether the proposed testimony will ―assist the trier of fact.‖ If the answer to is affirmative,
the court must consider whether the proffering expert is qualified by ―knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education‖ to render an opinion
on the particular subject. If the expert is so qualified, the district court must finally determine whether the expert's opinions are ―reliable‖ under
the factors enunciated in Daubert and Kumho Tire Co, Ltd. v Carmichael, 526 US 137 [1999].

Tests of reliability and validity in the forensic environment

Blankenship method

The Blankenship method suggests that, if movements are not reproducible in an acceptable coefficient of variants, they are not reliable.

Examples of situations that might reflect incorrect invalidity are the following:

        The patient is obese.
        The patient is out of shape and/or has pulmonary problems.
        The patient has psychiatric problems.
        The patient does not understand the instructions.
        The patient's sex may affect the results.

Heart rate/blood pressure method

The theory underlying the heart rate/blood pressure method of determining an examinee's effort is this: If the person's blood pressure is
elevated, his or her effort is valid.

Examples of situations that may result in inappropriate invalid findings are as follows:

        The patient has oily skin or sweats profusely. (These observations are used to determine that the person's heart rate may be
        The patient has cardiac abnormalities.
        The patient has psychiatric problems.
        The patient does not understand the instructions.
         The patient is taking medications that affect his or her blood pressure.

Recent research suggests that patients with chronic back disabilities may have more dysfunctional coping mechanisms, pain avoidance,
depression and self-reported disability than do other individuals. Psychosocial variables strongly related to test performance, and therefore
FCE findings, may not be "necessary or valid in assessing the physical performance of this population of chronic pain patients." (Ruan, 2001)

Duration and extrapolation of FCE results

FCE should take 4 hours to 1 week to perform, and an occupational or physical therapist should perform the examination (Wyman, l999).

How are results of 2-4 hours extrapolated to a 40-hour work week? Those who report FCE results in a forensic environment must be prepared
to answer the following questions:

         1. How was the validity of your FCE determined?
         2. What are the minimum number of validity criteria?
         3. Were they met in this case?
         4. Who performed the evaluation and recorded the data?
         5. Did someone help the claimant fill out the paperwork?
         6. Can the claimant read? If so, does he or she read English or any other language?
         7. How do you know if the claimant can read or not?
         8. Did you prescreen the claimant for cardiac restrictions?
         9. What medication did the claimant take, or what medication was the claimant taking, and how can it affect the test results?
          (Examples are medications to treat cardiac problems and Xanax, which affects concentration and energy levels)
         10. How were the coefficient of variances determined? Do other organizations or professionals use different numbers? Why?
         11. Why are your numbers more valid that numbers others might report?
         12. Which extrapolation method was used? (Examples: Snook, Blankenship, Dictionary of Occupational Titles [DOT])
         13. How many participants were in the control group of the study that determined the validity of this research?
         14. What research supports the assertion that reproducible results that are inconsistent an arbitrarily established coefficient of
          variance, or range, means that the study is invalid and that the patient is showing a lack of effort?
         15. Did the results exclude the claimant from sedentary, light, medium, or heavy duty?
         16. Did the results squarely fit within the DOT's definitions of sedentary, light, medium, or heavy duty?
         17. How long did the test take?
         18. If the test is unquestionably not reproducible, would you not agree the claimant can still have a valid medical condition resulting in
          impaired function?


Controversy surrounds the use of the aforementioned tests. If it is used in a forensic environment, one can assume there the legal community
may pose difficult and probing questions about the test chosen and the science behind it. The practitioner must fully understand how the test
was developed and be prepared to discuss the science supporting its validity scales and extrapolation methods.

    PSYCHIATRIC ISSUES OF IMPAIRMENT RATING AND DISABILITY                                                                  Section 8 of 11
 Author Information Introduction To Impairment And Disability Evaluation Concepts In Disability Evaluation Impairment Rating Guides Impairment Rating Examples
 Example Of Disability Evaluation Legal And Other Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Psychiatric Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability
 Evaluation Sample Deposition Questions On Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Pictures Bibliography

Determination of a permanent rating for a psychiatric impairment presents complications. For example, in Florida, a psychologist cannot issue
a PIR.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

The more information that is obtained about an examinee's condition, the more grounded the impairment rating. For example, a psychological
evaluation based on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is appropriate in many cases. This 570-question test has a built
in F scale to compensate for exaggerating, a feature that can lend credibility to a diagnosis. This test is widely accepted by psychiatrists and
psychologists and commonly used throughout the nation. However, caution is urged to ensure that only individuals who meet the requirements
of National Computer Systems and the University of Minnesota administer the test.

The MMPI is not the sole factor used in arriving at a diagnosis. This tool must be taken into account along with the results of a clinical
interview. In fact, a PIR should not be rendered without a clinical interview. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) code of ethics
specifically requires a clinical interview or an attempt to interview the patient before an opinion is rendered.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition

The most commonly accepted treatise or book on how to determine the nature of a psychiatric illness is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual,
Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). This book is divided into sections based on diagnoses and the criteria for such diagnosis. The presentation is
straightforward and serves to assist the nonmedical professional to verify that the psychiatrist or psychologist followed the proper steps before
making a diagnosis.

Multiaxial psychiatric evaluation

The psychiatric evaluation should be performed in a multiaxial format, as indicated below. The DSM-IV also suggests this format, as do the
AMA Guides. Furthermore, the figure in the introduction to the mental issues chapter represents this format. A multiaxial evaluation contains
references for 5 axes the practitioner addresses, a follows:

        Axis 1: The psychiatric diagnosis is major depression. What is the patient's actual condition in psychiatric terms?
        Axis 2: The patient is diagnosed as suffering from a personality disorder (eg, obsessive compulsive personality disorder). By
         definition, a personality disorder develops in late adolescence or early adulthood and cannot develop spontaneously. An individual
         with a personality disorder has significant functional impairment or significant stress secondary to that disorder. By definition,
         personality disorders are serious, not mild. This axis applies only to personality disorders. By saying "none," the professional is
         indicating here that the patient had no preexisting personality disorder.
        Axis 3: This axis for low back pain represents physical problems or conditions suffered by the patient (eg, glaucoma, cancer, stomach
         problems). Diagnosis of these conditions is important because many physical problems can cause psychiatric problems. For
         example, hypothyroidism can cause depression, as can many medications given for other disorders. This axis explains that the
         physical problems exist, so any part they may play in the psychiatric diagnosis must be addressed.
        Axis 4: This divorce axis represents psychosocial stressors (eg, loss of a child, problems with primary support group, occupational
         problems, economic problems, law suits).
        Axis 5: The axis for global assessment functioning (GAF) represents the GAF scale from 0-100 referred to on page 32 of the DSM-IV.
         A patient functioning in the 90-100 range has few, if any, psychiatric symptoms. Someone functioning in the l0-20 range probably
         should be hospitalized because of the threat they represent to themselves and others. A score of 45 means the patient has serious
         symptoms, significant functional impairment, and even may be suicidal. NOTE: This rating number can change throughout the course
         of treatment and frequently does.

Many psychiatrists may not follow this format and simply evaluate a patient and render a diagnosis. This type of assessment is less desirable
and has less scientific basis than the multiaxial format. If a multiaxial format is followed, comparing and contrasting the reports of psychiatrists
become much easier. The multiaxial format also encourages consistency, which can legitimize the approach to assessment.

Assessment of symptoms

The PIR must be based on a complete report that discusses specific symptoms of psychiatric illness. The most common indications include
the following:

        Change in weight
        Desire to commit suicide
        Anhedonia (ie, pervasive lack of interest in things, feeling BLAH, not wanting to do anything fun)
        Feelings of guilt or worthlessness
        Psychomotor agitation or retardation (eg, talking and moving very quickly as expected with psychomotor agitation or very slowly in
         psychomotor retardation)
        Somatic symptoms (ie, physical symptoms actually caused by psychiatric distress, such as chest pain, heart palpitations, headaches,
         stomach aches, bowel problems)
        Difficulty concentrating

The evaluation can be incomplete if the patient was not asked about these symptoms or if such questions were not discussed. Most patients
do not know what information is being collected unless the doctor is direct. A 15-minute interview during which the psychiatrist asks the patient
if he or she is depressed is wholly insufficient for initial diagnosis. The examiner should establish rapport with the patient, observe his or her
body language, and review the medical history.

Ancillary tests

Ancillary tests, such as those previously mentioned, also are recommended. These tests are most commonly administered by psychologists,
who then provide the results to the psychiatrist for treatment. If possible, enlist the cooperation of outside individuals (eg, employer, spouse,
friend). A review of the information supporting other medical diagnoses is also important.

If traumatic brain injury (TBI) is suspected, information about the examinee's premorbid functioning is important and may be extracted from
school records. If the patient's psychiatric condition is expected to improve with treatment, the patient has not reached MMI.

One common pitfall with doctors that defense attorneys frequently hire is that they tend to make improper diagnoses. Often, a psychiatrist or
psychologist diagnoses a personality disorder to explain psychiatric symptoms and soften the blow for the defense because a personality
disorder, by definition, predates an accident. Therefore, although the patient may have an impairment rating, the rating may not due to the
accident or injury. Some plaintiff-oriented doctors may ignore the symptoms of personality disorders and attribute an injury on

Evidence of personality disorder may include poor grades, failure to develop important interpersonal relationships, repeated problems with the
law or authority, a failure to hold steady jobs, and being defined by the environment.

If the practitioner is unsure if a diagnosis is appropriate, the diagnostic tree contained in the DSM-IV (page 689) may be helpful. This appendix
is useful in ruling out other diagnoses. By answering the questions, the examiner reaches the ultimate diagnosis. An attorney who is preparing
to cross-examine the practitioner may also find this diagnostic tree helpful.

                                                                                                                        Section 9 of 11
 Author Information Introduction To Impairment And Disability Evaluation Concepts In Disability Evaluation Impairment Rating Guides
 Impairment Rating Examples Example Of Disability Evaluation Legal And Other Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation
 Psychiatric Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Sample Deposition Questions On Impairment Rating And Disability
 Evaluation Pictures Bibliography

Sample disposition questions to ask during the impairment rating and disability evaluation are shown below.

    1.    Which disability/impairment guide was used and why?
    2.    What is the examiner's training and expertise on impairment rating?
    3.    Which extraneous factors were taken into consideration for the impairment rating?
    4.    Was the persons' intelligence quotient (IQ) considered in the physical impairment rating?
    5.    Was IQ considered in the mental impairment rating?
    6.    Was vocational dysfunction considered in the impairment rating?
    7.    How many ROM studies were performed in each joint plane?
    8.    Was the spinal muscle spasm graded?
    9.    Is the examiner familiar with the entire AMA Guides or just with the section used for rating?
    10.   In rendering orthopedic/spinal impairment rating, did the examiner also consider the neurologic section for determining impairment
    11.   Did the examiner consider chronic pain syndrome or other associated mental disorders when determining the overall impairment
    12.   Did the examiner consider the effect of lack of sleep and concentration in the overall impairment rating?
    13.   Did the examiner determine whether or not there was any urologic or sexual dysfunction caused by the injury and was it rated?
    14.   If the examiner became aware that the claimant's function was far greater than claimed, would the impairment rating be adjusted?
    15.   If there were a prior impairment rating for a similar condition, what impact would it have on the impairment rating for the present
    16.   If there are physical and mental impairments, are the ratings added or combined?

          (Impairment ratings associated with mental disorders are combined with physical impairments to determine a person's overall
          impairment. These values are combined by using the combined-value chart, rather than simply added, to determine the overall
          impairment. A combined-values chart is used when more than 1 impairment rating for different diagnoses [eg, limb, organ, system]
          are determined. Values are added, rather than combined, only when multiple range-of-motion ROM measurements are considered
          for a single joint.)

    17. Does the final impairment rating include consideration of whether the impairment rating is likely to worsen over time?
    18. At what point was the impairment rating assigned?
    19. What factors would cause the examiner to reevaluate this impairment rating?
    20. Is the impairment rating secondary to the accident under consideration or to some other cause?
    21. Is it not true that a patient can have significant impairment with no vocational disability?
    22. Is it not true that a patient can have minimal or no impairment with significant vocational disability?
    23. What is the scientific basis for the impairment guide used?
    24. Did the patient ever ask the examiner to increase the impairment rating?
    25. Is it not true that an impairment rating may be appropriate even without the patient's having sustained injury in an accident?
    26. Is it not true that the guides give no impairment rating for chronic pain?
    27. Please apportion the impairment rating based on the preexisting degenerative condition versus the injury caused by aggravation
        following the accident.
    28. What effect does personality disorder have on the impairment rating?
    29. What are the objective findings that support the impairment rating?
    30. What are the subjective findings that the support the impairment rating?

          PICTURES                                                                                                  Section 10 of 11
 Author Information Introduction To Impairment And Disability Evaluation Concepts In Disability Evaluation Impairment Rating Guides Impairment Rating Examples
 Example Of Disability Evaluation Legal And Other Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Psychiatric Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability
 Evaluation Sample Deposition Questions On Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Pictures Bibliography

Caption: Picture 1. Work Evaluation System Technology (WEST) system

                                                                         View Full Size Image
                                                  eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)
Picture Type: Image
Caption: Picture 2. Symptom-discomfort chart.

                                                  View Full Size Image

                                                  eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)

Picture Type: Image
Caption: Picture 3. Changes in activity rating.

                                                  View Full Size Image

                                                  eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)

Picture Type: Graph
Caption: Picture 4. Discomfort activity rating.

                                                  View Full Size Image

                                                  eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)

Picture Type: Graph
Caption: Picture 5. Functional-activity summary and recommendations.

                                                  View Full Size Image

                                                  eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)

Picture Type: Graph
Caption: Picture 6. Materials handling and lifting table.

                                                  View Full Size Image

                                                  eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)
Picture Type: Graph
Caption: Picture 7. Grip strength graph.

                                                View Full Size Image

                                                eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)

Picture Type: Graph
Caption: Picture 8. Ankle strength. Dorsiflexion.

                                                View Full Size Image

                                                eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)

Picture Type: Graph
Caption: Picture 9. Ankle strength. Plantar flexion.

                                                View Full Size Image

                                                eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)

Picture Type: Graph
Caption: Picture 10. Dorsiflexion test.

                                                View Full Size Image

                                                eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)

Picture Type: Photo
Caption: Picture 11. Plantar flexion test.

                                                View Full Size Image

                                                eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)

Picture Type: Photo
Caption: Picture 12. Compensatory mechanics. Lower lift.

                                                View Full Size Image

                                                eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)

Picture Type: Photo
Caption: Picture 13. Maximum lift, upper range.

                                                View Full Size Image

                                                eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)

Picture Type: Photo
Caption: Picture 14. Maximum lower, lift range.

                                                View Full Size Image

                                                eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)

Picture Type: Photo
Caption: Picture 15. Edema in the left leg.

                                                View Full Size Image

                                                eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)

Picture Type: Photo
Caption: Picture 16. Dynamic lifting results table.

                                                View Full Size Image

                                                eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)
Picture Type: Graph
Caption: Picture 17. Heart rate and blood pressure table.

                                                View Full Size Image

                                                eMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!)
Picture Type: Graph
Caption: Picture 18. Tables from the Florida Uniform Permanent Impairment Rating
Schedule (FUPIRS).

Picture Type: CT
       BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                                                                Section 11 of 11
Author Information Introduction To Impairment And Disability Evaluation Concepts In Disability Evaluation Impairment Rating Guides Impairment Rating Examples
Example Of Disability Evaluation Legal And Other Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Psychiatric Issues Of Impairment Rating And Disability
Evaluation Sample Deposition Questions On Impairment Rating And Disability Evaluation Pictures Bibliography

        Abdel-Moty E, Fishbain DA, Khalil TM, et al: Functional capacity and residual functional capacity and their utility in
         measuring work capacity. Clin J Pain 1993 Sep; 9(3): 168-73[Medline].
        AMA: American Medical Association. Guides Casebook: Cases to Accompany Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent
         Impairment. 4th ed. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1993.
        APA: Spitzer RL, Skodol AE, First MB, et al. DSM-IV Casebook: A Learning Companion to the Diagnostic & Statistical
         Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Arlington, VA; American Psychiatric Association; 1994.
        Aronoff GM, Harden N, Stanton-Hicks M, et al: American Academy of Disability Evaluating Physicians (AADEP) position
         paper: complex regional pain syndrome I (RSD): impairment and disability issues. Pain Med 2002 Sep; 3(3): 274-
        Babitsky S, Mangraviti J: Understanding the AMA Guides: A Comparison of the Fourth Edition to the Third Edition. Vol
         2. Wiley John & Sons; 1994.
        Badley EM: An introduction to the concepts and classifications of the international classification of impairments,
         disabilities, and handicaps. Disabil Rehabil 1993 Oct-Dec; 15(4): 161-78[Medline].
        Brigham C: Independent medical evaluations and disability assessment. The OEM Report 1992; 6(1): 5-8.
        Durand MJ, Loisel P, Poitras S, et al: The interrater reliability of a functional capacity evaluation: the physical work
         performance evaluation. J Occup Rehabil 2004 Jun; 14(2): 119-29[Medline].
        Dusik LA, Menard MR, Cooke C, et al: Concurrent validity of the ERGOS work simulator versus conventional functional
         capacity evaluation techniques in a workers' compensation population. J Occup Med 1993 Aug; 35(8): 759-67[Medline].
        Eiseman E, Luck JB, Mills AS, et al: Use of phorbol-12,13-dibutyrate as a mitogen in the cytogenetic analysis of tumors
         with low mitotic indexes. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1988 Sep; 34(2): 165-75[Medline].
        Feuerstein M, Hickey P: Ergonomic approaches in the clinical assessment of occupational musculoskeletal disorders.
         In: Turk DC, Melzack R, eds. Handbook of Pain Assessment. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1992: 72-99.
        Florida Workers' Compensation Institute: Florida Uniform Permanent Impairment Rating Schedule. Tallahassee, FL:
         FWCI; 1996.
        Geisser ME, Robinson ME, Miller QL, Bade SM: Psychosocial factors and functional capacity evaluation among
         persons with chronic pain. J Occup Rehabil 2003 Dec; 13(4): 259-76[Medline].
        Gibson L, Strong J, Wallace A: Functional capacity evaluation as a performance measure: evidence for a new approach
         for clients with chronic back pain. Clin J Pain 2005 May-Jun; 21(3): 207-15[Medline].
        Gloss DS, Wardle MG: Reliability and validity of American Medical Association's guide to ratings of permanent
         impairment. JAMA 1982 Nov 12; 248(18): 2292-6[Medline].
        Gouttebarge V, Wind H, Kuijer PP: Reliability and validity of Functional Capacity Evaluation methods: a systematic
         review with reference to Blankenship system, Ergos work simulator, Ergo-Kit and Isernhagen work system. Int Arch
         Occup Environ Health 2004 Nov; 77(8): 527-37[Medline].
        Gross DP, Battiรฉ MC, Cassidy JD: The prognostic value of functional capacity evaluation in patients with chronic low
         back pain, I: timely return to work. Spine 2004 Apr 14; 29(8): 914-9[Medline].
        Gross DP, Battié MC: Factors influencing results of functional capacity evaluations in workers' compensation claimants
         with low back pain. Phys Ther 2005 Apr; 85(4): 315-22[Medline].
        Gross DP: Measurement properties of performance-based assessment of functional capacity. J Occup Rehabil 2004
         Sep; 14(3): 165-74[Medline].
        Harbin G, Olson J: Post-offer, pre-placement testing in industry. Am J Ind Med 2005 Apr; 47(4): 296-307[Medline].
        Hart DL, Berlin S, Brager PE, et al: Development of clinical standards in industrial rehabilitation. J Orthop Sports Phys
         Ther 1994 May; 19(5): 232-41[Medline].
        Hunter OK, Sims DC, Davis H: Impairment rating of neurologic disorders. Neuro Rehabil 1998; 11: 41-9.
        Isernhagen S: Functional capacity evaluation. In: Work Injury: Management and Prevention. Rockville, MD: Aspen;
         1988: 137-74.
        King PM, Tuckwell N, Barrett TE: A critical review of functional capacity evaluations. Phys Ther 1998 Aug; 78(8): 852-
        Klimek E, Strait J: Volition of impairment rating: the validity of effort assessments. Disability 1997; 6: 9-18.
        Lechner DE, Bradbury SF, Bradley LA: Detecting sincerity of effort: a summary of methods and approaches. Phys Ther
         1998 Aug; 78(8): 867-88[Medline].
        Lechner, D, Jackson, J, Roth, D, Straaton, K: Reliability and validity of a newly developed text of physical work
         performan. Journal of Occupational Medicine (1994); 36: 997-1004.
        Lemstra M, Olszynski WP, Enright W: The sensitivity and specificity of functional capacity evaluations in determining
          maximal effort: a randomized trial. Spine 2004 Apr 23; 29(9): 953-9[Medline].
         Luck JV Jr, Florence DW: A brief history and comparative analysis of disability systems and impairment rating guides.
          Orthop Clin North Am 1988 Oct; 19(4): 839-44[Medline].
         Matheson L: Evaluation of lifting and lowering capacity. Vocation Eval Work Adjust Bull 1986; 19: 107-11.
         Matheson L: Integrated work hardening in vocational rehabilitation: an emerging model. Vocation Eval Work Adjust Bull
          1988; 21: 71-6.
         Matheson L: Work Capacity Evaluation: Interdisciplinary Approach to Industrial Rehabilitation. Anaheim, CA:
          Employment Rehabilitation Institute of California; 1984.
         Matheson L: Work Capacity Evaluation: Systematic Approach to Industrial Rehabilitation. Anaheim, CA: Employment
          Rehabilitation Institute of California; 1987.
         Matheson, L: Evaluation of lifting and lowering capacity. Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin (1986);
          19(3): 107-111.
         May V, Taylor D, Brigham C, et al: Functional capacity evaluation, impairment rating, and applied certification
          processes. Neurorehabilitation 1998; 11: 13-27.
         May V: Documenting functional performance criteria in work capacity evaluations. In: Sixth National Forum on Issues on
          Vocational Assessment: The Issues Papers. Menomonie, WI: Stout Vocational Rehabilitation Institute; 1993: 179-90.
         May V: Physical capacity evaluation and work hardening: The Carle Clinic model. In: National Forum on Issues in
          Vocational Assessment: The Issues Papers. Menomonie, WI: Stout Vocational Rehabilitation Institute; 1984: 233-9.
         May V: Work capacity evaluation and work hardening: process and applications in private sector rehabilitation. In:
          Deutsch P, Sawyer H, eds. Guide to Rehabilitation. New York, NY: White Plains, NY: Ahab; 1984.
         May V: Work hardening and work capacity evaluation process: definition and process. Vocation Eval Work Adjust Bull
          1988; 21: 61-6.
         May VR, Martelli MF: National Association of Disability Evaluation Professionals (NADEP) Guide to Functional Capacity
          Evaluation with Impairment Rating Applications. Richmond, Va: NADEP; 1999.
         Mooney V: Impairment, disability, and handicap. Clin Orthop 1987 Aug; (221): 14-25[Medline].
         OSHA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Work Practices Guide for Manual Lifting. Cincinnati, OH: National
          Institute of Occupational Safety and Health; 1983.
         Pace HR: Ability to work: the Social Security viewpoint. N Y State J Med 1982 Nov; 82(12): 1726-9[Medline].
         Pizizatella T, Nelson R, Nester D, et al: The NIOSH strategy for reducing musculoskeletal injuries. In: Isernhagen S, ed.
          Work Injury Management and Prevention. Rockville, MD: Aspen; 1988: 196-225.
         Pransky GS, Dempsey PG: Practical aspects of functional capacity evaluations. J Occup Rehabil 2004 Sep; 14(3): 217-
         Reneman MF, Brouwer S, Meinema A, et al: Test-retest reliability of the Isernhagen Work Systems Functional Capacity
          Evaluation in healthy adults. J Occup Rehabil 2004 Dec; 14(4): 295-305[Medline].
         Rogers SH: Job Evaluation in Work Fitness Determination. In: Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews. Vol 3.
          Philadelphia, PA: Hanley and Belfus 1992: 219-39.
         Ruan CM, Haig AJ, Geisser ME, Buchholz RL: Functional capacity evaluations in persons with spinal disorders:
          predicting poor outcomes on the Functional Assessment Screening Test (FAST). J Occup Rehabil 2001 Jun; 11(2):
         Rustenburg G, Kuijer PP, Frings-Dresen MH: The concurrent validity of the ERGOS Work Simulator and the Ergo-Kit
          with respect to maximum lifting capacity. J Occup Rehabil 2004 Jun; 14(2): 107-18[Medline].
         Schonstein E, Kenny DT, Keating J: Work conditioning, work hardening and functional restoration for workers with back
          and neck pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; CD001822[Medline].
         SSA: Social Security Administration. Disability Evaluation Under Social Security. Publication No. 64-039. Washington,
          DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1995.
         US Court of Appeals: Ralston v Smith and Nephew Richards, Inc, 275 F3d 965 (10th Cir 2001) .
         Washington C, Taylor D, May V, et al: Perceived level of importance of functional capacity evaluation job tasks in the
          work disability evaluation process. In: Vocational Evaluation Work Adjustment Bulletin. Vol 29. 1996:64-69.
         WHO: World Health Organization International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps: A Manual of
          Classification Relating to the Consequences of Disease. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1980.
         Wickstrom R: Functional capacity testing. In: Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Vocational Assessment of Impaired
          Workers. Rockville, MD: Aspen; 1990: 73-88.
         Wyman DO: Evaluating patients for return to work. Am Fam Physician 1999 Feb 15; 59(4): 844-8[Medline].
         Ziporyn T: Disability evaluation: a fledgling science? JAMA 1983 Aug 19; 250(7): 873-4, 879-80[Medline].

Medicine is a constantly changing science and not all therapies are clearly established. New research changes drug and treatment therapies daily. The authors, editors,
and publisher of this journal have used their best efforts to provide information that is up-to-date and accurate and is generally accepted within medical standards at the
time of publication. However, as medical science is constantly changing and human error is always possible, the authors, editors, and publisher or any other party
involved with the publication of this article do not warrant the information in this article is accurate or complete, nor are they responsible for omissions or errors in the
article or for the results of using this information. The reader should confirm the information in this article from other sources prior to use. In particular, all drug doses,
indications, and contraindications should be confirmed in the package insert. FULL DISCLAIMER

Shared By: