199. Workers' Compensation Claims and Ergonomics: Examination of the Data in North Carolina

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Snow ◽  
M. Ayoub ◽  
A. Waldorf
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Compensation Claims

Use of the AMA Guides in State Workers' Compensation Systems: 2009 Update

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Jenny Walker
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
North Carolina ◽  
South Carolina ◽  
South Dakota ◽  
Rhode Island ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Specific Guideline ◽  
Compensation Systems

Abstract The AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is the most widely used basis for determining impairment and is used in state workers’ compensation systems, federal systems, automobile casualty, and personal injury, as well as by the majority of state workers’ compensation jurisdictions. Two tables summarize the edition of the AMA Guides used and provide information by state. The fifth edition (2000) is the most commonly used edition: California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont, and Washington. Eleven states use the sixth edition (2007): Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Eight states still commonly make use of the fourth edition (1993): Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Two states use the Third Edition, Revised (1990): Colorado and Oregon. Connecticut does not stipulate which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Six states use their own state specific guidelines (Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), and six states do not specify a specific guideline (Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia). Statutes may or may not specify which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Some states use their own guidelines for specific problems and use the Guides for other issues.

Medical and Legal Issues Raised by the Protz Decision Issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 12-13
Author(s):  
LuAnn Haley ◽  
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Complex Concept ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
Recent Edition ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Pennsylvania adopted the impairment rating provisions described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in 1996 as an exposure cap for employers seeking predictability and cost control in workers’ compensation claims. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down the Protz decision, which held that requiring physicians to apply the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the AMA Guides reflected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the American Medical Association. The decision eliminates the impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) mechanism under which claimants were assigned an impairment rating under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides periodically are revised to include the most recent scientific evidence regarding impairment ratings, and the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, acknowledges that impairment is a complex concept that is not yet defined in a way that readily permits an evidence-based definition of assessment. The AMA Guides should not be considered standards frozen in time simply to withstand future scrutiny by the courts; instead, workers’ compensation acts could state that when a new edition of the AMA Guides is published, the legislature shall review and consider adopting the new edition. It appears unlikely that the Protz decision will be followed in other jurisdictions: Challenges to using the AMA Guides in assessing workers’ compensation claims have been attempted in three states, and all attempts failed.

scholarly journals Gauging Risk Stability: A Simple Test Using Patterns of Workers’ Compensation Claims

2012 ◽  
Vol 01 (03) ◽  
pp. 27-32
Author(s):  
Richard J. Butler ◽  
B. Delworth Gardner ◽  
Harold H. Gardner
Keyword(s):  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Simple Test ◽  
Compensation Claims

scholarly journals Firefighter’s Workers’ Compensation Claims in Montana, 2007-2017: A Cost Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (11) ◽  
pp. 159-165
Author(s):  
Rylie Mutzenberger ◽  
Julia Brennan ◽  
Emily Healy ◽  
Theresa Stack ◽  
Amy Kuenzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Compensation Claims

Incidence of Workers’ Compensation Claims in Opioid-Using Truck Drivers

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay S. Scholl ◽  
Matthew S. Thiese ◽  
Rodney Handy
Keyword(s):  
Truck Drivers ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Compensation Claims
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document