scholarly journals Workers' Compensation Insurance and the Duration of Workplace Injuries

10.3386/w3253 ◽  
1990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Krueger
Keyword(s):  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Workplace Injuries

scholarly journals P038: Comparison of diagnostic imaging rates between workplace and non-workplace injuries in the emergency department: a ten-year review

CJEM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (S1) ◽  
pp. S78-S78
Author(s):  
A. Sampalli ◽  
C. LeBlanc ◽  
S. Campbell ◽  
M. Vohra
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Nova Scotia ◽  
Occupational Injuries ◽  
Head Injuries ◽  
Central Zone ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Further Education ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Workplace Injuries ◽  
Work Related

Background: In Canada, injuries represent 21% of Emergency Department (ED) visits. Faced with occupational injuries, physicians may feel pressured to provide urgent imaging to facilitate expedited return to work. There is not a body of literature to support this practice. Twenty percent of adult ED injuries involve workers compensation. Aim Statement: Tacit pressures were felt to impact imaging rates for patients with workplace injuries, and our aim was to determine if this hypothesis was accurate. We conducted a quality review to assess imaging rates among injuries suffered at work and outside work. A secondary aim was to reduce the harm resulting from non-value-added testing. Measures & Design: Information was collected from the Emergency Department Information System on patients with acute injuries over the age of 16-years including upper limb, lower limb, neck, back and head injuries. Data included both workplace and non-work-related presentations, Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) levels and age at presentation. Imaging included any of X-ray, CT, MRI, or Ultrasound ordered in EDs across the central zone of Nova Scotia from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2019. A total of 282,860 patient-encounters were included for analysis. Comparison was made between patients presenting under the Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (WCB) and those covered by the Department of Health and Wellness (DOHW). Imaging rates for all injuries were also trended over this ten-year period. Evaluation/Results: In patients between 16 and 65-years, the WCB group underwent more imaging (55.3% of visits) than did the DOHW group (43.1% of visits). In the same cohort, there was an overall decrease of over 10% in mean imaging rates for both WBC and DOHW between the first five-year period (2009-2013) and the second five-year study period (2013-2018). Imaging rates for WCB and DOHW converged with each decade beyond 35 years of age. No comparison was possible beyond 85-years, due to the absence of WCB presentations. Discussion/Impact: Patients presenting to the ED with workplace injuries are imaged at a higher rate than those covered by the DOHW. Campaigns promoting value-added care may have impacted imaging rates during the ten-year study period, explaining the decline in ED imaging for all injuries. While this 10% decrease in overall imaging is encouraging, these preliminary data indicate the need for further education on resource stewardship, especially for patients presenting to the ED with workplace injuries.

Workers' Compensation, Moral Hazard and the Composition of Workplace Injuries

2002 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Bolduc ◽  
Bernard Fortin ◽  
France Labrecque ◽  
Paul Lanoie
Keyword(s):  
Moral Hazard ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Workplace Injuries

scholarly journals Legal and Insurance Concerns Following Concussion

Concussion ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 211-216
Author(s):  
Brian Hainline ◽  
Lindsey J. Gurin ◽  
Daniel M. Torres
Keyword(s):  
Brain Injury ◽  
Compensation System ◽  
Musculoskeletal Injuries ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Workplace Injuries ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
Concussion Management ◽  
Neurological Exam

When a concussion injury occurs in a workplace, employees may be required to use Workers’ Compensation insurance. There may be a limited pool of available clinicians who accept Workers’ Compensation insurance, which can delay proper concussion management. Further, workplace injuries may be associated with other musculoskeletal injuries; these other injuries may be managed first, thereby delaying appropriate concussion management. Concussion injuries may also lead to litigation, and being involved in a legal process has been associated with prolonged concussion symptoms. This of course must always be differentiated from brain injury, which should be appropriately compensated when negligence has occurred. For any patients who have suffered a concussion injury and who are in the Workers’ Compensation system or who are in the legal process, it is important to carefully document objective findings on the neurological exam.

Workplace injuries in the Australian allied health workforce

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Anderson ◽  
Rwth Stuckey ◽  
Lauren V Fortington ◽  
Jodi Oakman
Keyword(s):  
Allied Health ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Workplace Injuries ◽  
Allied Health Professionals ◽  
Injury Rates ◽  
Allied Health Professions ◽  
Serious Injury ◽  
Absence From Work ◽  
Serious Injuries

Objective This study aims to identify the number, costs and reported injury mechanisms of serious injury claims for allied health professionals. Methods Using Australian Workers’ Compensation injury data, the number, mechanism, and costs of injury claims were calculated for eight groups of allied health professions (chiropractors and osteopaths, speech pathologists and audiologists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, psychologists, podiatrists, social workers and prosthetists/orthotists) between the 2000–01 and 2013–14 financial years. Workforce injury rates were calculated using the 2011 Australian Census Workforce data (denominator) and 2011 Workers’ Compensation Statistics claims data (numerator). Results Across the allied health professions, 7023 serious injuries (minimum 5 days absence from work) were recorded with an associated total compensation cost of A$201970000. Fewer than 1.5% of each allied health professional group had an injury claim, with the exception of prosthetists/orthotists who had a rate of 25.9% serious injury claims (95% confidence interval 21.9–30.4). The average cost per claim varied across the allied health professions, from the lowest cost of A$19091 per injury for occupational therapists to the highest of A$48466 per claim in chiropractic and osteopathy. Body stressing followed by mental stress were the most common mechanisms of injury. Conclusions Mechanism of injury, both physical and psychosocial, were identified. Prosthetists/orthotists are at the highest risk of workplace injury of all allied health professions. This suggests the need for further investigation and development of appropriately targeted injury prevention programs for each allied health profession. What is known about this topic? Retention of allied health professionals is a significant issue, with workplace injuries identified as one contributing factor to this problem. Healthcare workers are potentially at high risk of injury as they are exposed to a range of physical and psychosocial hazards in their workplace. What does this paper add? This paper is the first to report on serious injuries, minimum 5 days absence from work, from Australian Workers’ Compensation data, across a range of allied health professions. Various allied health professions were examined to identify the number, mechanism and cost of serious workplace injuries finding there is an average of 500 serious claims per year at a cost of A$14million. Prosthetists/orthotists were identified as having the highest proportion of claims per workforce population. What are the implications for practitioners? These results suggest highly varied injury rates across allied health professions. Compensation data does not enable accurate identification of causal factors. Further work is required to identify relevant causal factors so that targeted risk reduction strategies can be developed to reduce workforce injuries.

Issues in California Workers' Compensation: Substantial Medical Evidence, Causation, and Apportionment

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 12-15
Author(s):  
Steven D. Feinberg
Keyword(s):  
Compensation System ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Medical Evidence

Abstract This article describes special aspects of addressing and defining substantial medical evidence, causation, and apportionment in the California Workers' Compensation system. Substantial medical evidence is framed in terms of reasonable medical probability, and the opinion must be based on fact and not be speculative. The issue of whether the injury occurred in the course of employment is left to the Trier of Fact (WCAB judge). The issue of arising out of employment is a medical issue left to the physician. Apportionment applies to both the industrial and nonindustrial cause of the disability.

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.

State-by-State Use of AMA Guides

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 3-7, 16
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Narrow Range ◽  
The United States ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Federal Employees ◽  
Permanent Disability ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
History Of ◽  
Canadian Provinces

Abstract This article presents a history of the origins and development of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), from the publication of an article titled “A Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment of the Extremities and Back” (1958) until a compendium of thirteen guides was published in book form in 1971. The most recent, sixth edition, appeared in 2008. Over time, the AMA Guides has been widely used by US states for workers’ compensation and also by the Federal Employees Compensation Act, the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as well as by Canadian provinces and other jurisdictions around the world. In the United States, almost twenty states have developed some form of their own impairment rating system, but some have a narrow range and scope and advise evaluators to consult the AMA Guides for a final determination of permanent disability. An evaluator's impairment evaluation report should clearly document the rater's review of prior medical and treatment records, clinical evaluation, analysis of the findings, and a discussion of how the final impairment rating was calculated. The resulting report is the rating physician's expert testimony to help adjudicate the claim. A table shows the edition of the AMA Guides used in each state and the enabling statute/code, with comments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document