Second Opinions Blog

The industry's top independent medical evaluation service provider offers timely information on a wide range of medical news and claims management topics - all in the name of helping you manage injury claims in the most efficient and cost effective manner.   

Follow Our Blog 
Get the latest and greatest delivered directly to your email box weekly:     

Additional educational information is also available through our informative quarterly newsletter "The Examiner."  Click here to review past issues or sign up to receive your copy in the mail.   


 

Perhaps the most difficult challenge in orthopedics is articular cartilage.  You know, the white, pearlescent stuff that covers our joints and makes them operate smoothly and without pain (before arthritis sets in, that is).  And why is articular cartilage so difficult?  Well, it’s pretty simple:  we can’t regrow it when it breaks down and wears away.  Hence, the only options for treating worn articular cartilage or osteoarthritis are, once the pain and dysfunction become unbearable, to fuse the worn joint or to replace it with artificial components.  Despite advances in orthopedic components and surgical techniques, joint replacement is a suboptimal option for treating worn articular cartilage.  Fusion is even less optimal, the point of joints being articulation (or motion).

If we could figure out a way to regrow articular cartilage, calling it game-changing would be an understatement.  It would be revolutionary, especially for those in the worker’s compensation world where countless musculoskeletal injury claims involve allegations that work injuries or occupational exposure caused or worsened osteoarthritis.  Can you imagine a world where a claimant with debilitating knee pain goes to the doctor and rather than walking out with a knee replacement, the claimant goes to a gene therapist who treats the knee by growing new articular cartilage?  No surgery, no infection, no rehab, no disability, just a new knee. 

Turns out this dream is closer to reality than you might think.  Researchers in Manchester, England recently published research in which they used embryonic stem cells to regrow articular cartilage in the damaged knee joints of rats.  Remarkably, "[a]fter 12 weeks, the cartilage surface was smooth and similar in appearance to normal cartilage.”  In contrast to earlier efforts which produced abnormal and disorganized tissue, including tumors, the Manchester scientists were able to grow wholly normal, functioning cartilage in the rats’ knee joints.

These findings from the Manchester study are exciting (almost beyond exciting, truth be told).  The research is worth monitoring as it advances toward testing in human subjects, which is still probably several years away.  Nevertheless, this development gives us a glimpse of a potentially arthritis-free future.  Imagine that.

2/20/2015 in Blog Categories, News

Test your own line of reasoning for internal consistency.

Much of the point of Brewer’s preceding rules or decision heuristics was to remove assumptions and emotion out of the claims evaluation process.  This step is where we put the prior steps to work for us to evaluate whether we have in fact successfully analyzed the claim before us in an unbiased and logical fashion. 

Let us assume that we are analyzing a claim involving an acute foot injury followed by years of occupational exposure in an obese, 46-year-old, female claimant.  When the claimant was 37, she suffered a calcaneal fracture while on the job.  She is employed as an assembler doing light work, but stands for the duration of her shift.  She was not issued final restrictions after reaching an end of healing following the first injury, but was issued a 15% PPD rating based on loss of motion.  The employer did not offer any accommodations to limit the amount of standing the claimant would have to do, but the claimant never requested an accommodation or complained about standing too much.  The claimant subsequently developed arthritis and is scheduled to undergo a subtalar fusion.  Medical opinions support three possible causes for the claimant’s current condition and the need for the fusion:

  1. The arthritis is related to the claimant’s age and body habitus and bears no relationship to the calcaneal fracture or the subsequent workplace exposure;
  2. The arthritis is wholly related to the calcaneal fracture, is a normal sequelae of that type of injury, and the subsequent occupational exposure was not a material contributory causative factor in the onset or progression of the arthritis;
  3. The arthritis is posttraumatic and the subsequent occupational exposure was a material contributory causative factor in the progression of the arthritis (causing it to progress faster than it otherwise would have).

In our case, we represent the carrier on the risk for the subsequent occupational exposure date of injury.  Our IME doctor concluded that the claimant developed the arthritis due to her age and weight and supports his conclusion by arguing that the claimant would have become symptomatic much sooner if the arthritis were posttraumatic.  The IME doctor for the carrier on the risk for the acute fracture date of injury concluded that the arthritis is posttraumatic but that the subsequent period of occupational exposure caused the arthritis to progress faster than it otherwise would have.  Finally, the treating surgeon concluded that the acute fracture is the sole cause of the arthritis and the need for the surgery. 

During the course of our investigation we learned several things:

  1. The claimant’s non-injured foot is asymptomatic;
  2. The claimant dislocated the same ankle while sliding into third base during a high school softball game when she was 16.  The dislocated ankle was manually reduced and treated non-surgically with casting then physical therapy;
  3. The claimant works from 7:00 to 3:30 and has two 15 minute breaks and a 30 minute lunch.  The employer admits that generally the claimant and other assemblers stand for the balance of each day unless they are in a meeting.  Production meetings are held Mondays at 7:00 and last 15-20 minutes.  Otherwise assemblers are infrequently in meeting (less than once per month). 
  4. 9 months before the occupational date of injury the employer hired a new production supervisor.  In general, the assemblers do not like the new supervisor and several, including the claimant, complained to human resources about his conduct. 
  5. The calcaneal fracture and the current subtalar fusion are the only worker’s compensation claims the claimant has made.
  6. Both insurance carriers took recorded statements and the claimant consistently describes the injury occurring gradually, over a period of a few months, progression until it became too painful to ignore at which time she sought treatment with the orthopedist who treated her original fracture.
  7. The original calcaneal fracture was displaced and treated surgically with open reduction and internal fixation.
  8. The claimant reported that she does not wear high heels or other non-supporting shoes but instead generally wears running shoes when she is not a work.

Based on the information obtained in the investigation, we developed a litigation plan and completed our investigation.  Now we have our litigation plan in place and are preparing to roundtable the claim with our supervisor.  Before heading to the roundtable, we have decided to run through the claim again to judge whether we are still comfortable enough with our analysis to present and defend it at the claims roundtable.

We reached the following conclusions about the claim:

  1. An ALJ is likely to find the current condition to be work-related because the uninjured ankle is asymptomatic.
  2. An ALJ is more likely to find the original fracture is the appropriate date of injury than the occupational exposure date because the treating orthopedist on both injuries concluded the subsequent occupational exposure did not cause the onset or progression of the condition.

To prepare, we need to analyze our conclusions to see if they are internally consistent.  First, we concluded that the injury is likely to be deemed work-related.  In examining the claims file, two strong facts support our conclusion.  One, the employee’s uninjured foot shows no evidence of arthritis.  This is significant because the claimant’s occupation stresses the subtalar joints of both feet equally (or nearly so).  Hence, if the arthritis were idiopathic we would expect to see the arthritis in both subtalar joints.  Two, subtalar arthritis is a well-known and relatively common complication of calcaneal fractures.

Second, we concluded that the ALJ is more likely to conclude that the original fracture is the appropriate date of injury for the claimant’s current condition.  Our basis for concluding this is that the treating physician who treated the original injury and the current condition is the same; therefore, he has had the best chance to observe the claimant over time which renders his opinion most credible.  This is not as solid a position as the first one is.  In a sense, the argument is a non sequitur because it does not necessarily logically follow that the treating physician is better able to determine causation based on familiarity with employee’s condition over time.  In making this argument, we have at least one unstated premise that needs to be articulated and explored before we can determine if the argument is in fact internally consistent and valid.  The unspoken premise is a common one in worker’s compensation:  all things being equal, ALJs consider treating physicians to be more credible than IME physicians.  As far as I know, this assumption is based on experience and anecdote and not actual objective data.  Hence, we need to be cautious in applying the assumption to our argument and should not consider it necessarily to be dispositive.  The reason for our caution is that the assumption is based on the overarching view that most ALJs will, all things being equal, apply the Worker’s Compensation Act liberally and grant benefits to employees making claims.  If this view is true, and at least it is reinforced by statute and state Supreme Court pronouncements, then it actually may weaken our assumption that an ALJ will find the treating physician most credible in this case.  The reason is that if an ALJ were to find the treating physician most credible, the employee would be stuck with benefits at a considerably lower rate than if the ALJ found the IME doctor for the original date of injury to be most credible.  Remember:  the IME doctor for the original date of injury insurance carrier finds the claim is work-related and his opinion establishes a date of injury 9 years later, with the corresponding increase in the temporary total disability and permanent partial disability rates that would obtain.  If the primary motivating factor of an ALJ in a close case is giving benefits to a claimant then it is reasonable to assume that the ALJ will also be motivated to give a claimant the highest benefit rate when there is a credible opinion allowing her to do so.  Thus, we may wish to adjust our opinion and note that the date of injury is likely to be a closer call than we at first posited.

Obviously this is simplistic and something of an exaggeration intended for illustrative purposes.  Presumably, we would have considered the problematic assumptions about the date of injury as soon as we had all the relevant medical opinions.  Nevertheless, the example serves a purpose:  when evaluating a claim, you must test the line of reasons that led you to the conclusions you reached for internal consistency.  In doing so, you will stand the best chance of discovering non sequiturs and other logical reasoning problems or errors that may cast doubt on the validity and strength of the conclusions you reached.

Reason #1:  Employers shall not use doctors “employed on a regular basis by the employer” when seeking FMLA second opinions.  We have a large number of doctors to choose from and can track how many times you have used the same doctor. 

Medical Systems, Inc., we’re not just for worker’s compensation any more.

2/10/2015 in Blog Categories, News

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center released information critical to the success of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (more commonly referred to as “CPR”) efforts.  Specifically, medical researchers reviewed research and found that persons applying chest compressions to those in cardiac arrest often compress the chest too deeply and too rapidly.  Researchers say there is a “sweet spot” between the depth of compressions and the rate of compressions that optimizes the chances for a patient’s survival.  For chest compressions to have the best chance of working, they need to be performed to a depth of between 5 and 5.5 centimeters (about two inches) and at a rate of between 100-120 compressions per minute.  The researchers found that compressing the chest greater than 5.5 inches reduces the likelihood of survival and speculate that such deep compressions probably cause injury to the patient which counteracts the resuscitative effects.  In addition, researchers found that many responders perform chest compressions at rates of about 140 compressions per minute, which is too fast and reduces the effectiveness of the resuscitation attempt.  To achieve the right rate of compression, researchers noted that timing the compressions to the beat of “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” is effective and used by many well-trained first responders.

First responders and others trained in CPR should be aware of this new information.  Chest compressions that are too soft are ineffective as are compressions that are too hard.  Ditto compressions that are too slow or too fast.  Instead, chest compressions need to be just right. Apparently Goldilocks was on to something.

Medical News Today reports on a significant new study (fee or subscription required) of what causes episodes of acute low back pain.  Critically, the study’s authors concluded that most physical and psychosocial triggers of acute low back pain can be modified.  Per Medical News Today, some of the findings include:

  • [C]arrying out manual tasks involving awkward postures increases the risk of triggering acute low back pain by eight times;
  • [F]atigue and being distracted can also significantly increase the risk of acute low back pain;
  • [T]he odds of a new back pain episode was nearly 3 times higher chance following moderate to vigorous physical activity; and
  • [T]he odds of a new back pain episode was to a 25 times higher chance after being distracted during an activity.

Unusually, the study “also found that age was a factor in triggering back pain when lifting heavy loads - with younger people being significantly more likely to suffer an episode of acute low back pain after such activity than older people.”  This certainly will be counterintuitive for claims administrators and attorneys in the worker’s compensation field as conventional wisdom suggests older age is directly proportional to low back injuries rather than the inverse as was found in the study.  Regardless, the most important thing is to utilize knowledge from the study to reduce episodes of acute low back pain in the workplace.  Manuela Ferreira, lead author stated the matter succinctly:

Our findings enhance knowledge of low back pain triggers and will assist the development of new prevention programs that can reduce suffering from this potentially disabling condition.

What is it about shoulders?  They seem to cause an inordinate amount of problems, especially when the rotator cuff is involved.  And invariably, there is a question as to whether a shoulder claim involves an acute injury, an acute aggravation of a preexisting condition, an occupational injury, or the mere manifestation of a preexisting condition.  One of the biggest challenges in claims is determining whether and to what extent a shoulder condition is work-related.  Unfortunately, this task is often difficult for physicians too.

The hallmark of an acute rotator cuff injury is an asymptomatic shoulder, a discernible traumatic event, and immediate pain and weakness.  Unfortunately, this type of presentation accounts for less than 10% of all rotator cuff tears according to some literature.  In addition, the medical literature suggests that acute rotator cuff tears are underdiagnosed in emergency departments and often attributed to tendonitis, bursitis, arthritis, or some combination of all three.  To further complicate matters, many other conditions of the shoulder, cervical spine, and peripheral nerve system can produce symptoms that are similar to symptoms occurring in rotator cuff tears.  And finally, a somewhat sizable percentage of the population has asymptomatic rotator cuff tears which makes the determination of the etiology of the cuff defect difficult to determine.

The best way to assess whether a rotator cuff tear is acute or traumatic is with diagnostic imaging.  Numerous studies have found that mid-substance tears are more likely to be acute than insertional tears.  The presence of swelling and joint fluid or a hematoma also suggest that a tear is acute.  To the contrary, the absence of joint and bursal fluid suggests a chronic tear.  The presence of fatty infiltration and the degree of rotator cuff atrophy are also useful findings to assess the chronicity of the tear.  Interestingly, at least one study found that the “injury mechanism and the activity at the moment of injury did not correlate with the presence of a rotator cuff lesion,” but also found “a strong age correlation, with a prevalence of RCTs above 50% in patients aged over 50 years…” This study suggests a shockingly high rate of rotator cuff injury resulting from shoulder trauma in persons over 50. 

The strong correlation between age and rotator cuff tear caused one study’s authors to postulate that “it is even likely that there [is] no such thing as an acute cuff tear without some previous tendon degeneration.”  The authors of another study address the complicated relationship between the chronicity and symptomatic nature of rotator cuff tears and note that the “duration of symptoms does not necessarily reflect the duration a patient has had a rotator cuff tear…  It is not understood why full-thickness tears become symptomatic in some individuals and not others.”  How then, can any physician determine to a reasonable degree of medical certainty if a particular rotator cuff tear relates to the patient’s employment in the absence of diagnostic imaging that suggests a tear is acute?

In truth, the answer is that any physician who attributes a symptomatic rotator cuff tear to a workplace injury is most likely engaging in speculation if there is no acute traumatic event and no diagnostic imaging evidence demonstrating that the tear is acute.  This doesn’t mean that the tear can’t be acute and work-related, simply that there is no reasonable basis for a physician to determine the exact etiology of the tear to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.  In handling claims, it is important to recognize these situations and pose the question to the IME doctor directly as to there is any way, given the current state of evidence-based medicine, to determine what caused a rotator cuff tear (or caused it to become symptomatic) to a reasonable degree of medical certainty in the absence of an acute traumatic event, diagnostic imaging evidence that a tear is acute, or occupational risk factors such as repetitive overhead work.  If there are no specific risk factors, no precipitating injury, and no diagnostic imaging evidence of an acute tear, the answer should always be “no.”

From a claims perspective, there are several useful things that can be gleaned from the medical literature addressing rotator cuff conditions.  First, a definitive assessment of causation in the absence of a discrete, acute precipitating event with imaging evidence demonstrating the presence of an acute tear or an occupational risk factor should be considered impossible.  Of course treating surgeons will attempt to relate rotator cuff conditions to workplace injuries that do not meet the above criteria, but it is incumbent from a claims perspective that the IME physician points to the relevant medical literature and explains why it is not possible, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, to determine the etiology of a rotator cuff tear in the absence of the above criteria. 

Second, it should not come as a surprise if an employee over 40 who says they hurt their shoulder and is told that it is just a strain or tendinitis when they go the ER later discovers she has a rotator cuff tear.  The medical literature suggests that clinical examination in the emergency setting underestimate the presence of rotator cuff tears.  The relevant study found that in the patient population complaining of an acute shoulder injury who have an inability to perform active abduction above 90° and normal radiographs, more than 50% will have rotator cuff tears.  In establishing reserves, if the medical records show normal radiographs coupled with an inability to actively abduct the shoulder above 90°, it may be wise to consider the likelihood of a rotator cuff tear requiring surgical intervention to be 50%. 

Finally, knowing the different shoulder, neck, and peripheral nerve conditions that have similar symptom constellations to rotator cuff tear will help to assess what the likely diagnosis will be based on the clinical history, examination, and positive findings.  Thus, a shoulder complaint that can be localized to the acromioclavicular joint, is more likely to be a shoulder separation or acromioclavicular arthritis than a rotator cuff tear.  In another example, a complaint of gradual onset of shoulder pain with weakness that is especially noticeable during sleeping hours is likely to be a chronic rotator cuff tear or advanced impingement syndrome than an acute rotator cuff injury.

The bottom line is that shoulder injuries are often difficult claims, especially when they involve rotator cuffs.  Knowing the medical literature about how rotator cuff tears occur and what suggests acute versus chronic tears can help guide the claims analysis.  To learn more about the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of rotator cuff tears, join us on February 26, 2015 for the Medical Systems Advanced Medical Topics in Worker’s Compensation in Brookfield, Wisconsin at which Dr. Bartlett will give an in-depth presentation on acute shoulder injuries.  Claim handlers and legal professionals alike will gain valuable information on what claims will likely be compensable and what medical information can be used to defend against those which should not be compensable.

1/22/2015 in Blog Categories, News

Sit. Type. Sit. Read. Sit. Talk on the phone.  Sit.  Sit.  Sit. Go to a meeting.  Sit.   This is what many of us do for the vast majority of our workday.  We know that sitting all day is bad for our physical health.  We also know that breaking up the day with short walks can help counter the deleterious physical effects of sitting all day.  Now, it appears that a simple lunch time walk can also help with our outlook, energy, and focus at work. 

The New York Times reports on a study conducted in Sweden in which researchers used real time reporting of mood and emotion in a group of office workers assigned to walk at lunch and a control group of office workers who did not walk at lunch.  As the Times notes, “on the afternoons after a lunchtime stroll, walkers said they felt considerably more enthusiastic, less tense, and generally more able to cope than on afternoons when they hadn’t walked…”  The lead author noted that despite the study not addressing workplace productivity, “there is now quite strong research evidence that feeling more positive and enthusiastic at work is very important to productivity…so we would expect that people who walked at lunchtime would be more productive.”  Interestingly, most workers who were part of the walking group said they would not continue walking at lunchtime when the study was over because “they were expected by management to work through lunch.” 

Employers should seek ways in which to encourage employees to engage in less sedentary behavior during the work day.  Employees would be psychologically stronger and more resilient which will almost certainly increase their productivity.  Contrary to popular belief, stepping away from the desk at lunch will actually help you get more done. Encouraging employees to take a lunchtime walk seems like a simple, cost-effective way to improve employee mood and increase productivity.  That being said, I better put on my running shoes…

The employee is a delivery driver and is in a rollover accident.  Miraculously she suffers only minor injuries in the crash.  However, she hits the inside part of her right leg near her knee in the rollover and now, 18 months after the rollover, she still can’t go back to regular duty because she has a permanent foot drop.  Another employee gets his hand stuck in the machine he works on.  The broken bones heal and the tendons are repaired.  Unfortunately, it has been difficult returning him to work because he complains of burning pain every time he touches anything with the injured hand and his doctor has permanently restricted him to one-handed work.

What do these claims have in common?  Peripheral nerve injuries.  Peripheral nerve injuries are complicated, slow-healing, and often result in permanency.  Why are they so complicated and what you can do to make peripheral nerve injury claims go as smoothly as possible?  In this short primer, we hope to answer some of these questions.

To understand why nerve injuries are so challenging, it helps to know some basic nerve physiology.  Nerve cells (neurons) are essentially made up of little factories (axons) that produce chemicals (neurotransmitters) which mediate the electrical signals each nerve cell sends (axon) and receives (dendrite).  Nerve cells are not physically connected to each other and must send the electrical signals across a gap (synapse) to the next nerve cell (dendrite).  The axon of each nerve cell is encased in fatty cells (myelin) that increase the rate at which electrical signals are transmitted between nerve cells.  Branching extensions of the nerve cells (dendrites) receive the electrical signal from the axon of an adjacent nerve cell and transmit the signal to the axon for further transmission.  A failure of any part of this process will disrupt the nerve cell’s functioning and cause sensory or motor problems or both.

Unfortunately, nerve injuries take a long time to heal and often heal poorly because of the complex, compound, and disconnected nature of nerve cells.  Nerve injuries are categorized according to the degree to which the nerve cells are compromised. There are two classification systems – one use three categories and one using six categories.  This post will use the simpler, three part system because it is more concise (the six part system breaks second degree injuries into four subcategories based on the seriousness of the injury).  In first degree injuries, or neurapraxia, the nerve remains intact but its signaling ability is damaged.    Ordinarily persons suffering first degree injuries recover completely without residual sensory or motor impairment.  In second degree injuries, or axonotmesis, the axon is damaged but the surrounding connective tissues remain intact.  Recovery takes longer than in first degree injuries, but complete recovery without residual sensory or motor impairment is still the general rule.  In third degree injuries, or neurotmesis, both the axon and the surrounding connective tissue are damaged.  Recovery is exceptionally long in third degree injuries and typically results in some residual sensory or motor impairment.  In addition, surgery is often necessary to restore function in third degree injuries.  The alternate classification system essentially divides the axonotmesis category into four parts based on the severity of the insult to the axon. 

We will focus on third degree injuries because they are the most difficult to treat and usually result in permanency.  In a third degree nerve injury both the axon and supporting connective tissue are injured.  This means that the nerve cell must regenerate both the axon and its supporting structure.  The regeneration is complicated by a post-injury process called Wallerian degeneration.  Approximately 24-36 hours after the initial injury, the axonal injury disintegrates, the myelin sheath degrades, and macrophages and Schwann cells remove the cellular debris from the injury.  In third degree injuries, the supporting connective tissue (endoneurium), which is a tubular structure containing individual axonal fibers, is severed.  This causes problems because regenerating axonal fibers may meander into surrounding tissue or inappropriate neural tubes, thus failing to reinnervate their proper end organs.  The resulting loss of function is analogous to what would happen in a marionette show if the strings to the marionette controllers are cut and then randomly reattached, sometimes to the correct controller, sometimes to the incorrect controller.  Nothing really works right.

When nerve cells start regenerating after Wallerian degeneration, the process is slow.  Within four days of the injury, the injured axons start sending sprouts toward the neurolemma (tube comprised of Schwann cells surrounding the axon).  Schwann cells produce growth factors that attract the sprouts.  If a sprout reaches a neurolemma, it grows into the tube and advances approximately 1 mm per day until it reaches and reinnervates the target tissue.  Surgery may be necessary to guide the sprouts into the neurolemma when the gap is too wide or scar tissue has formed.  This regeneration and repair phase can last many months.  Human peripheral neurons are capable of initiating a regenerative response for at least 12 months after an injury.  Hence, it can be well after a year from the date of injury before a treating physician or an IME doctor will be able to place a patient who sustained a peripheral nerve injury at maximum medical improvement.

Further complicating matters, third degree injuries do not usually heal completely.  Several factors can contribute to an incomplete recovery.  First, intramuscular fibrosis (scarring) may hinder the muscle contraction a nerve impulse produces.  Erroneous cross-reinnervation may result in impaired functioning (the marionettes with crossed strings).  The imperfect regeneration also results in sensory deficits, especially in proprioception (how the body perceives itself in space), that rarely go away completely.  Even in first and second degree nerve injuries, sensory recovery often takes 6-12 months, so determining whether and to what degree permanent sensory impairment has resulted can take a year or more post-injury. 

The site of the injury itself and the regeneration process can result in the development of neuromas or gliomas, which can increase pain and disability.  If surgical realignment or stump approximation does not occur, the migration of axoplasm may form a neuroma, which is an errant scaffolding (structure) for axonal migration.  Essentially, the strands of axonal fibers get tangled as they seek the distal nerve stump, forming a ball of connective tissue and axonal fibers.  While some neuromas cause no problems, many are painful and impair functioning. 

Treatment and rehabilitation following peripheral nerve injury present their own challenges.  For example, in nerve injuries with extensive damage a graft may be needed to connect the two ends of viable nerve.  Using a graft will leave the patient with a large area of numbness that the donor nerve previously innervated.  The size of this area of numbness will shrink over time, but will not go completely away resulting in residual permanency for loss of sensation at a site remote from the injury.  In addition, nerve regeneration itself can be uncomfortable and accompanied by paresthesia (pins and needles) as the target tissue is reinnervated. 

Some of the direct consequences of peripheral nerve injury included:

  • Pain (ranging from tingling to intense, burning pain)
  • Numbness and altered sensation
  • Muscle weakness
  • Loss of function
  • Loss of active motion
  • Joint stiffness
  • Emotional distress

Unfortunately neuropathic pain is not well-understood and is difficult to treat.  Anticonvulsants and tricyclic antidepressants are the most popular drugs for neuropathic pain.  “Complete relief is very difficult and only 40-60% of patients achieve partial relief.”  The persistence and refractory nature of neuropathic pain causes psychological distress and is difficult to understand for persons who are accustomed to the way more typical musculoskeletal pain responds to conventional analgesic medications.  From a claims standpoint, neuropathic pain presents great impediments to returning claimants to work because claimants are conditioned to equate pain with physical disability and loss of function, but neuropathic pain frequently does not impair function and is only disabling from a psychological perspective (not to diminish the psychological distress that neuropathic pain causes).  It is critical for return to work efforts that the treating physicians and occupational/physical therapists convey the distinction between neuropathic and musculoskeletal pain to the claimant to avoid protracted disability beyond the period of actual physical impairment caused by the injury.

Weakness and loss of function are common complications of third degree nerve injuries because even in the best case scenario nerve regeneration is imperfect.  As noted above, weakness and loss of function result from many complicating factors including slow regrowth causing irreparable muscle atrophy, imperfect regrowth resulting in loss of function, and the presence of scar tissue in the muscle preventing normal contracture.  This presents challenges to the claim handler who must attempt to gauge return to work, appropriate rehabilitation, and permanent partial disability.  EMG can determine the rate at which nerves are growing and muscles are reinnervating, but functional use/restoration will lag behind reinnervation.  The reinnervated muscles have been without innervation for a time, so the body must relearn how to use the muscles again which takes time.  In addition, the muscles are usually reinnervated imperfectly, so the body is not only relearning how to use the newly innervated muscles, but it is also learning a new neural pattern of action.  The body cannot rely on muscle memory to speed the relearning process because the newly configured reinnervation is different than it was before, meaning muscle memory itself is altered or lost. 

Some studies have found that conservative therapies can be used alone or in conjunction with surgery to help restore function in peripheral nerve injuries.  Laser phototherapy “maintains functional activity of the injured nerve for a long period, decreases scar tissue formation at the injury site, decreases degeneration in corresponding motor neurons of the spinal cord and significantly increases axonal growth and myelinization.”  In addition, acupuncture has been found to be an effective treatment modality in improving the rate of recovery.  In managing nerve injury claims, it is important to know what therapies work and what do not.  Effective claim handlers should be conversant in treatment modalities that can hasten recovery and improve ultimate function so they can ensure patients with peripheral nerve injuries receive the treatment that will get them to an end of healing the fastest and will minimize the inevitable permanent partial disability rating.

Even with effective conservative treatment modalities such as laser phototherapy or acupuncture, recovering function and building strength in peripheral nerve injuries are long and arduous processes that require skilled therapy and a motivated patient.  If either variable is lacking, recovery is likely to be compromised.  A supreme difficulty for claim handlers is managing the nerve injury case where either the employee lacks motivation or their choice of treating therapist appears to be wanting in some fashion.  Early engagement in the claim can help foster a “can do” attitude in the injured worker and a positive relationship with the therapist so that he or she pushes the worker and provides the highest and best evidence-supported rehabilitative care.

The Medical Systems, Inc. “Advanced Topics in Worker’s Compensation Symposium” will address these and other issues related to severe, acute industrial injuries to the hand and wrist with Dr. Jan Bax.  Join us to learn why severe hand and wrist injuries present such difficult challenges, what the best medical and surgical treatments of these injuries are, and what strategies you can utilize to help claimants get the best physical recovery and (in the process) lower your costs. 

Headaches are such a headache.  This will hardly be news to anyone working in claims or human resources.  Whether the headaches are wholly personal (FMLA), work-related, or accident-related, employees and claimants with permanent and persistent headaches pose a unique challenge.  A new study reported on in Medical News Today suggests that instead of taking a conservative approach to managing headaches, which is the most effective and lowest cost treatment modality, many medical providers are instead opting to order expensive and typically useless advanced neuroimaging tests for their headache patients.  The study specifically found that, “rather than talking to patients about the causes and potential sources of relief from headache pain, clinicians are increasingly ordering advanced imaging and providing specialist referrals, both of which are considered to be of little value in the treatment of routine headaches.” 

Generally speaking, conservative treatment such as stress-relief counseling and avoiding dietary triggers are the preferred treatment modalities for managing most routine headaches.  As John N. Mafi, M.D., lead author of the study, notes, “the assessment of headaches depends on identifying the relatively rare instances where serious underlying causes are suspected” and that “despite the publication of numerous practice guidelines, clinicians are increasingly ordering advanced imaging and referring to specialists while less frequently suggesting first-line lifestyle modifications to their patients.

The problem with the overusing imaging studies rather than treating conservatively is multifold.  First, and most obviously, ordering unnecessary imaging studies unnecessarily increases costs.  Second, overusing imaging studies may result in incidental findings that “provoke unnecessary patient anxiety, can lead to more invasive procedures and often require follow-up testing," as Dr. Mafi stated, further increasing costs unnecessarily.  Third, ordering unnecessary imaging may in fact delay recovery from acute episodes and hamper control over chronic headaches because most patients are not being offered the most effective treatment for most headaches.  This invariably will lead to greater absenteeism and greater levels of perceived disability.

The truth is, by and large most headaches do not require any type of neuroimaging or laboratory testing.  For example, “in the absence of neurologic findings, episodic migraine does not require imaging studies…”  Also, “[p]atients who have had a stable headache pattern for at least six months rarely have significant intracranial pathology” and “in the absence of worrisome features, these patients do not require imaging.”  One reason that imaging studies are usually not required for headache is that “[i]n adults, it is unusual for headache to be the presenting symptom of an underlying systemic disease in the absence of other symptoms.”  This is why additional testing, including neuroimaging, is not recommended in the absence of red flag signs and symptoms that suggest an underlying dangerous pathology might be causing the headache.  According to the American Academy of Family Physicians, red flag signs and symptoms in the evaluation of acute headaches that require additional testing (and the testing recommended) include:

  • First or worst headache of the patient’s life – neuroimaging
  • Focal neurologic signs, not typical aura – blood tests, neuroimaging
  • Headache triggered by cough or exertion, or while engaged in sexual intercourse – lumbar puncture, neuroimaging
  • Headache with change in personality, mental status, level of consciousness – blood tests, lumbar puncture, neuroimaging
  • Neck stiffness – lumbar puncture (meningitis)
  • Older than 50 years – erythrocyte sedimentation rate, neuroimaging
  • Papilledema (optical disc swelling) – lumbar puncture, neuroimaging
  • Rapid onset (seconds to minutes, thunderclap headache) – lumbar puncture, neuroimaging
  • Systemic illness with headache – blood test, lumbar puncture, neuroimaging, skin biopsy if rash present
  • Tenderness over temporal artery – erythrocyte sedimentation rate, temporal artery biopsy
  • Worsening pattern – neuroimaging.

Fortunately, headache management is surprisingly simple and requires little “medicine” in the conventional sense.  Perhaps this is part of the problem:  patients expect high tech, advanced imaging to “figure out what is wrong” with them when high tech, advanced imaging will do no such thing for the vast majority of headache patients.  Instead, the more pedestrian truth is that physicians do not know why most patients with chronic or episodic headaches have them and that the most effective management techniques often involve lifestyle choices to reduce stress and avoid headache triggers: 

Behaviors that help to prevent headache flares include establishing a habit of regular mealtimes, sleep and awake times, and exercise.  It is useful to help the patient identify any connection between psychosocial stressors and headache flares.  Most headache patients can benefit from basic stress-reduction techniques such as yoga and meditation.  There is compelling evidence for the efficacy of biofeedback, relaxation techniques, and cognitive-behavior therapy for headache prophylaxis. 

Headaches are not all that difficult to treat.  The results of the above study are disappointing because advanced imaging studies (and other diagnostic tests) are contraindicated in the vast majority of patients with episodic and chronic headaches.  Episodic and chronic headache are difficult because the etiology is usually unknown and the treatment is dispiritingly low tech for a patient population accustomed to seeing fancy drug ads and hearing about exciting technological breakthroughs on a regular basis.  The key to treatment is for patients to accept responsibility for their condition and to take steps to manage the condition effectively.  From a claims or an employee management perspective, knowing the evidence-based treatment guidelines for episodic and chronic headache will help keep a handle on what treatment is being proposed and authorized and will help ensure that doctor and patient alike are following the guidelines.    

We previously began a series on how to improve decision making while managing claims.  The series was based on a paper by Jeffrey Brewer.  In the paper, Brewer identifies 10 strategies for improving decision making:

  1. Consciously raise the questions, “What do we know…?  How do we know…?  Why do we accept or believe…?  What is the evidence for…?” when studying or approaching a problem.
  2. Be clearly and explicitly aware of gaps in available information.  Recognize when a conclusion is reached or a decision is made in absence of complete information and be able to tolerate the ambiguity and uncertainty (which can be painful in the medico-legal-claims environment where the goal is total predictability).  Recognize when one is taking something on faith without having examined he “How do we know…? Why do we believe…?” questions.
  3. Discriminate between observation and inference, between established fact and subsequent conjecture.
  4. Recognize that words are symbols of ideas and not the ideas themselves.  Recognize the necessity of using only words of prior definition, rooted in shared experience, in forming a new definition and in avoiding being misled by technical jargon.
  5. Probe for assumptions (particularly the implicit, unarticulated assumptions) behind a line of reason.
  6. Draw inferences from data, observations, or other evidence and recognize when firm inferences cannot be drawn.
  7. Perform hypothetico-deductive reasoning, that is, given a particular situation, apply relevant knowledge of principles and constraints and visualize, in the abstract, the plausible outcomes that might result from various changes one can imagine being imposed on the system.
  8. Discriminate between inductive and deductive reasoning; that is, be aware when an argument is being made from the particular to the general or from the general to the particular.
  9. Test one’s own line of reasoning for internal consistency and thus develop intellectual self-reliance.
  10. Develop self-consciousness concerning one’s own thinking and reasoning process.

Prior entries addressed strategies 1-6.  This entry will examine Brewer’s seventh strategy for improving decision making:

Perform hypothetico-deductive reasoning, that is, given a particular situation, apply relevant knowledge of principles and constraints and visualize, in the abstract, the plausible outcomes that might result from various changes one can imagine being imposed on the system.

In this directive, Brewer challenges us to remove emotion and bias when we examine claims.  It is easy to make assumptions based on first impressions and intuitions when you first receive a claim.  Hence, one may think a claim is bogus or fraudulent because of the claimant’s long history of unwitnessed soft tissue injury claims instead of analyzing the claim and what the likely outcomes will be based on the available evidence.  The claimant’s history of making dubious claims is relevant, but focusing on that history without first examining the available objective facts and the inferences to be drawn from them would be a mistake.  The claimant’s history impacts her credibility; the claimant’s credibility impacts the likelihood of the claimant succeeding at hearing or trial, which is nothing more than a probability function that helps determine the dollar value of the claim.  Even if evidence of actual fraud arises, the information will reduce the claim to a zero or negative value.  [By negative value I mean that the claimant could owe penalties or restitution that would inure to the benefit of the employer or insurance carrier.]  Regardless, even in a case of outright and uncontested fraud, the ultimate effect is an economic one despite the moral outrage one may personally feel about the claimant’s fraudulent (and probably criminal) behavior.

If we cannot separate our personal feelings about a claim or a claimant from our analysis of the claim, we are likely to make poor decisions regarding both the value of the claim and how the claim should be managed.  For example, in our fictitious claimant with a long history of dubious claims, we may be inclined to put more resources into surveillance than the facts and exposure on the claim would otherwise suggest is appropriate.  Also, we may be prone to understate the claim’s value because we are likely to transfer our suspicion into our calculation of the exposure and our likelihood of successfully defending the claim at hearing or trial.  In both the management and valuation of the claim, we may potentially set ourselves up for an unpleasant surprise if we judge a claim based on our visceral response to the claimant’s history rather than the actual demonstrative evidence.

A better way to address claims is to run it through “hypothetico-deductive reasoning” to visualize the possible outcomes based on the actual demonstrative evidence.  This process of analysis has the virtue of forcing us to consider possible outcomes that may run counter to our emotions and intuitions (which are unlikely to be based on the actual demonstrative evidence before us).  The process of dissociating ourselves emotionally from claims to engage in this reasoning process helps ensure that the decisions we are making are based on objective evidence and not on unsupported evidence or personal bias.

Let’s consider an example based on the above discussion.  Let’s say Hank has worked for the Acme Corporation for 22 years assembling road runner retention and destruction devices for a certain loyal, if misguided, customer who happens to be a member of the species canis latrans, more commonly known as a coyote.  In 13 of his 22 years at Acme, Hank has made a worker’s compensation claim.  Remarkably, in 8 of the 13 claim years Hank suffered an unwitnessed soft tissue injury within weeks of the opening of gun deer hunting season.  (The Acme Corporation happens to be located in Wisconsin where some consider the opening of gun season to be a bona fide sacred holiday).  In 4 of the remaining 5 claim years, Hank suffered unwitnessed soft tissue injuries in suspiciously close proximity to various legally recognized holidays.  In short, Hank and his claim history are sources of enormous frustration for his employer who rightfully regards the claims with more than a modicum of suspicion. 

Now entering his 23rd year of service for the Acme Corporation, Hank claims to have injured his shoulder assembling a pair of roller skates that are fitted with expandable jet engines for the misguided coyote.  In what is a running joke among the human resources and risk management departments, the injury occurred while Hank was working alone and a mere 3 days before the opening of gun hunting season, during which Hank has neglected to take any vacation days.  Aside from rolling eyes and jokes at Hank’s expense, the employer is sincerely and understandably frustrated with the amount that the claim will cost the company.    Accordingly, they have communicated their suspicion regarding the veracity of this claim to their insurer.  Such is the employer’s level of frustration that the employer has demanded that their insurer take a scorched earth policy in investigating and, they have no doubt, in denying and subsequently litigating the claim.  Included in this demand is the employer’s “suggestion” that surveillance be performed.

The claims handler assigned to the case reviews Hank’s claims history and discusses the current claim with the employer and, understandably, is left with the distinct impression that the claim is suspicious at best.  Based on the information from the employer, the claims handler is inclined to believe that Hank is undoubtedly faking the injury to get off work for deer hunting season and that she should arrange, post haste, for surveillance to catch him enjoying his worker’s compensation-funded vacation. 

However, the claims handler has additional information available at the time she ordered surveillance.  First, the employer had a physical demands analysis conducted on the job Hank was performing when he claims to have injured his shoulder.  The occupational medicine specialist performing the analysis concluded that the job Hank was performing put employees at a moderate-to-high risk of sustaining shoulder injuries because of the combination of the forces involved and the awkward, overhead positioning.  Second, the injury report documents that Hank reported the injury two thirds of the way through his shift on a Wednesday, that he reported the injury immediately, and that he went to the emergency room immediately after reporting the injury. 

At this point, if we apply hypothetico-deductive reasoning to the available facts we have essentially two likely scenarios.  First, Hank’s claims history suggests that he may be using an unwitnessed “accident” to get time off from work with TTD benefits to go deer hunting.  Second, the physical demands analysis, the fact that it occurred mid-shift/mid-week, Hank’s prompt reporting, and Hank’s prompt treatment suggest that perhaps the claimed injury may be legitimate.  Under the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning, we should at this point consider what information we would need to make one scenario more plausible than the other.

We know that Hank went to the emergency room.  We should find out, if possible, what diagnostic tests were done, the results of the physical examination, whether a definitive diagnosis of an objective injury was established, whether the diagnosis was wholly based on subjective complaints, etc.  We would also want to know if other employees suffered similar injuries doing the same or similar jobs.  We should interview Hank before conducting surveillance.  Perhaps his claims history suggests that he has not been credible in the past, but we want to base our judgment on present information.  We would want to know how he described the incident he claims caused an injury.  We would want to know whether the incident was acute, definable, and resulted in immediate pain versus a more nebulous scenario in which pain arose gradually and was not attributed to a specific motion or incident.  We would want to know what the emergency room doctor or PA told him was the diagnosis.  We would want to ask him about his deer hunting plans.

Let’s start with the emergency room visit.  If the diagnosis is shoulder instability/subluxation (also known as a partial dislocation) based on x-ray evidence, this would probably trump any suspicions we might have based on his prior claims history.  On the other hand, normal imaging studies and a shoulder strain diagnosis based wholly on subjective complaints would bolster our suspicion that Hank is acting consistently with his prior questionable claim history.  The same analysis would apply to the other pieces of information obtained in the investigation.  Our gut instinct might tell us the Hank or any other employee is manipulating the system and fabricating an injury, but we should test our assumptions and instincts using hypothetico-deductive reasoning so that we engage in the most thorough investigation possible, are unsurprised when the investigation follows a plausible path (even if it conflicts with our gut instinct), and make our claims decisions based on reason rather than emotion.  In this way, we can make the best decisions when managing claims, even if that decision is at odds with our gut.

On a related note, one of Hank’s co-workers completed the roller skates with the expandable jet engines.  The roller skates were successfully shipped to the coyote in an otherwise nondescript wood box stamped all over with “Acme Corporation” in bright red letters.  Fortunately for the coyote, the skates worked precisely as expected.  After hiding behind a large cactus conveniently located next to a long stretch of single lane highway in Monument Valley, the coyote heard the approaching “Beep, beep” of his longtime avian prey and foe.  As the roadrunner sped by, the coyote activated the jets and took off with remarkable alacrity after the bird.  Unsurprisingly, the jet-powered roller skates soon brought coyote even with and then past the roadrunner who, in typical form, gave out a nonplussed “Beep, beep” as the coyote wooshed by. 

The coyote realized too late his error in not requesting from Acme Corporation that some sort of braking mechanism be added to the skates/jet engines.  Specifically, the immense power and speed of the jet-powered skates propelled him the entire length of the straightaway and quickly brought him to a 90 degree turn in the road at the apex of which stood the rock face of a mesa.  With roller skate wheels lacking the necessary friction coefficient to execute the turn and 375 miles an hour, the coyote surrendered himself to inevitability with a resigned and slightly plaintive look, and struck the rock face with a “poof,” causing a rather large cloud of dust to appear.  Miraculously, coyote walked away from the crash.  He had, however, reached a breaking point.  Instead of contacting Acme Corporation for a new and ridiculous contraption for catching the roadrunner, he contacted a products liability attorney in Phoenix…

<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 >>

Archive