Biological Psychology: An Introduction to Behavioral, Cognitive, and Clinical Neuroscience. Sixth Edition. By S. Marc Breedlove, Neil V. Watson, and Mark R. Rosenzweig. Sunderland (Massachusetts): Sinauer Associates. $134.95. xix + 624 p.+ A-1–A-7 + G-1–G-31 + R-1–R-48 + AI-1–AI-11 + SI-1–SI-18; ill.; author and subject indexes. ISBN: 978-0-87893-324-2. 2010.

2012 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 262-263
Author(s):  
Patricia Whitaker-Azmitia
Keyword(s):  
Biological Psychology ◽  
Clinical Neuroscience ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
G 31

The AMA Guides in Pennsylvania “Post-Protz”: Act 111 and Case Law Update

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 12-19
Author(s):  
Justin D. Beck ◽  
Judge David B. Torrey
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Disability Benefits ◽  
Permanent Disability ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Recent Edition ◽  
Impairment Ratings

Abstract Medical evaluators must understand the context for the impairment assessments they perform. This article exemplifies issues that arise based on the role of impairment ratings and what edition of the AMA Guides to the Impairment of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is used. This discussion also raises interesting legal questions related to retroactivity, applicability of prior precedent, and delegation. On June 20, 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down its decision, Protz v. WCAB (Derry Area Sch. Dist.), which disallows use of the “most recent edition” of the AMA Guides when determining partial disability entitlement under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. An attempted solution was passed by the Pennsylvania General Assembly and was signed into law Act 111 on October 24, 2018. Although it affirms that the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, must be used for impairment ratings, the law reduces the threshold for total disability benefits from 50% to 35% impairment. This legislative adjustment benefited injured workers but sparked additional litigation about whether, when, and how the adjustment should be applied (excerpts from the laws and decisions discussed by the authors are included at the end of the article). In using impairment as a threshold for permanent disability benefits, evaluators must distinguish between impairment and disability and determine an appropriate threshold; they also must be aware of the compensation and adjudication process and of the jurisdictions in which they practice.

A Historical Review of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in the “Guides Library”

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Robert J. Barth
Keyword(s):  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome ◽  
Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy ◽  
International Association ◽  
Historical Review ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Sixth Edition

Abstract Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a controversial, ambiguous, unreliable, and unvalidated concept that, for these very reasons, has been justifiably ignored in the “AMA Guides Library” that includes the AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), the AMA Guides Newsletter, and other publications in this suite. But because of the surge of CRPS-related medicolegal claims and the mission of the AMA Guides to assist those who adjudicate such claims, a discussion of CRPS is warranted, especially because of what some believe to be confusing recommendations regarding causation. In 1994, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) introduced a newly invented concept, CRPS, to replace the concepts of reflex sympathetic dystrophy (replaced by CRPS I) and causalgia (replaced by CRPS II). An article in the November/December 1997 issue of The Guides Newsletter introduced CRPS and presciently recommended that evaluators avoid the IASP protocol in favor of extensive differential diagnosis based on objective findings. A series of articles in The Guides Newsletter in 2006 extensively discussed the shortcomings of CRPS. The AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, notes that the inherent lack of injury-relatedness for the nonvalidated concept of CRPS creates a dilemma for impairment evaluators. Focusing on impairment evaluation and not on injury-relatedness would greatly simplify use of the AMA Guides.

Sleep Impairment

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 7-10
Author(s):  
Craig Uejo ◽  
Stephen Demeter
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Distal Clavicle ◽  
Rotator Cuff Disease ◽  
Degenerative Arthritis ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Cuff Tear ◽  
Shoulder Region ◽  
Illness Causation ◽  
Traumatic Rotator Cuff Tear ◽  
Distal Clavicle Resection

Abstract In the AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, distal clavicle resection (resection arthroplasty of the acromioclavicular joint [ACJ]) results in ratable impairment, but only a single diagnosis within a region may be rated. Therefore, if another impairing condition is present in the shoulder region (eg, impingement syndrome or rotator cuff disease) only that resulting in the greatest causally related impairment is rated. In the setting of an occupational or other compensable injury or illness, causation of the impairment often is a key issue because, typically, only impairment that is causally related to the injury can be rated. For example, assume that a lifting injury at work caused a tear in a rotator cuff tendon that was already attenuated by repetitive impingement on inferiorly projecting spurs from longstanding degenerative arthritis of the ACJ. If surgery was performed for a traumatic rotator cuff tear and the distal clavicle also was resected due to preexisting ACJ arthritis, the latter surgery is not considered to be related to the injury. In other words, because the ACJ arthritis was neither caused nor worsened by the injury, this condition is not rated. The distal clavicular resection may have been warranted to diminish pain due to ACJ arthritis and/or eliminate the distal clavicle as a source of impingement.

Obstacles to Claiming Permanence and Injury-Relatedness for “Posttraumatic” Headache

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 3-6
Author(s):  
Robert J. Barth
Keyword(s):  
Complete Recovery ◽  
World Health ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Posttraumatic Headache ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Causative Relationship ◽  
Short Period ◽  
The One ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Subjective Reports

Abstract “Posttraumatic” headaches claims are controversial because they are subjective reports often provided in the complex of litigation, and the underlying pathogenesis is not defined. This article reviews principles and scientific considerations in the AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) that should be noted by evaluators who examine such cases. Some examples in the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, may seem to imply that mild head trauma can cause permanent impairment due to headache. The author examines scientific findings that present obstacles to claiming that concussion or mild traumatic brain injury is a cause of permanent headache. The World Health Organization, for example, found a favorable prognosis for posttraumatic headache, and complete recovery over a short period of time was the norm. Other studies have highlighted the lack of a dose-response correlation between trauma and prolonged headache complaints, both in terms of the frequency and the severity of trauma. On the one hand, scientific studies have failed to support the hypothesis of a causative relationship between trauma and permanent or prolonged headaches; on the other hand, non–trauma-related factors are strongly associated with complaints of prolonged headache.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document