The AMA Guides and California Permanent Disability Rating Schedule feature subtle differences in rating instructions that can cause confusion about how to rate permanent disability, according to the Law Offices of Bradford and Barthel Expert Ratings Department.
The firm’s Ratings Department sometimes receives questions about certain instructions in the AMA Guides that are not followed in the California workers’ compensation system.
AMA GUIDES VERSUS THE CALIFORNIA PDRS
The AMA Guides includes instructions for calculating regional impairment for the spine, upper extremities, and lower extremities, which are not always applicable for California ratings.
It’s important to note that the AMA Guides is not jurisdictionally-specific, and instead was created to guide evaluations for numerous state and federal systems. There are jurisdictions that offer disability values for regions of the body, such as the Department of Labor (DOL) for example.
The Department of Labor’s PD rating schedule says that an arm/upper extremity is worth 312 weeks of compensation. With that in mind, here is an example – a 50% upper extremity impairment rating provides half of the value for an arm. So if a full arm is worth 312 weeks, then half of an arm is worth 156 weeks.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/owcp/dlhwc/lhwca#908
This differs from the California workers’ compensation system, which uses a different permanent disability rating schedule. In the California workers’ compensation system, practitioners don’t usually don’t rate an arm – we rate a shoulder, an elbow, a wrist, etc. This is explained in further detail below.
CALIFORNIA’S PERMANENT DISABILITY RATING SYSTEM
The 2005 California Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) was created after the Legislature agreed to require use of the AMA Guides, 5th Edition to determine impairment in California.
Section 1 of the 2005 PDRS is named “Introduction and Instructions,” and it addresses the PD rating issues that are unique to California. Section 1 includes instructions regarding our California specific rating adjustments for WPI increase (FEC or 1.4 ‘adjustment factor’), occupation, and age adjustments. It also includes instructions for combining and rating pain, and for rating psyche injuries using the GAF.
Thus, it’s very important to remember that when faced with any seemingly conflicting instructions, use the California PDRS instructions for addressing permanent disability.
For example, page 1-11 from the California PDRS offers some specific instructions that differ from the AMA Guides. That page specifically states that “except as specified below, all impairments” are adjusted and then combined. It goes on to list impairment numbers to address different parts of the body, and notes that.
Going back to our example, this page is where things differ from the Department of Labor’s rating schedule. In California, we would rate different parts of the upper extremity (ex: shoulder, elbow, wrist) and combine them, instead of rating “an arm” as the Department of Labor would have us do.
OTHER EXAMPLES
When it comes to upper and lower extremities, the AMA Guides and the California PDRS differ again.
For example, when rating lumbar impairment using the “Range of Motion” method, the Guides and the CA PDRS differ when it comes to when one combines different impairment values.
When rating the spine using the Range of Motion method:
- Spinal Disorder (Table 15-7) and motion impairment are combined and rated together using 15.03.02.xx (for the lumbar spine).
- Any residual lower extremity sensory deficits are combined and rated using 15.03.02.05. Residual lower extremity motor deficits are combined and rated using 15.03.02.06
There are multiple levels when rating impairment of extremities, which are:
- First level: Extremity Impairments: Upper extremity impairment (UEI) and/or lower extremity impairment (LEI)
- Second level: Whole Person Impairment: One combines UEI or LEI, and transforms it into whole person impairment (WPI)
- Third level: PD rating level: One combines WPIs and transforms it into PD rating
So when one looks at these different levels, one should note that the AMA Guides instructs to combine some values at the whole person impairment (WPI) level.
That differs from the CA PDRS, which calls for the combination of extremity impairments “involving a single part of an extremity” at the extremity impairment level (aka the first level).
In other words, the California Permanent Disability Rating Schedule is different in the respect that specific impairment numbers are a guide as to what level we should rate, and what impairments we should rate.
A good example is when one has to rate for what a layman would call “a wrist.”
The California PDRS has separate impairment numbers for peripheral neuropathy, a specific # for carpal tunnel, a specific number for wrist range of motion.
We would normally consider each separate body part/organ system assessment as a separate rating. Wrist (elbow, shoulder) ‘other’ would include ROM and any appropriate ‘other disorder’ that is not a peripheral nerve disorder.
California also varies with the Almaraz/Guzman rating doctrine, which allows physicians to use a rating by analogy in rare cases where the medical expert believes the PD rating is wholly inequitable. When using Almaraz/Guzman in a rating, those must use .99 at the end of the impairment number according to instructions from California’s Disability Evaluation Unit (DEU).
For example, if one were to:
- Rate headaches using Almaraz/Guzman would look like 13.01.00.99, according to the DEU.
- Use Alamaraz/Guzman rate elbow “by analogy” with Table 16-18, it would use the following impairment number: 16.03.02.99.
In Summary:
The AMA Guides is not jurisdictionally-specific. It includes some instructions for calculating regional impairment for the spine, upper extremities, and lower extremities that differ from the California PDRS.
As such, when it appears there is a conflict between rating systems, we strongly recommend use of the California PDRS version for California workers’ compensation claims.
Tim Mussack, the author of this blog post, leads Bradford & Barthel’s AMA Guides & Ratings Department. This division analyzes doctor reports to determine whether the physician has properly applied the AMA Guides, and also assists clients with complex PD ratings and COLA applications. Mr. Mussack and his associates have analyzed over 20,000 reports and identified tens of millions of dollars in potential savings for clients. For further information, see https://bradfordbarthel.com/areas-of-practice/bb-ratings/. If you have any questions about rating PD, please feel free to reach out to Tim at tmussack@bradfordbarthel.com or 916.569.0790.
Viewing this website does not form an attorney/client relationship between you and Bradford & Barthel, LLP or any of its attorneys. This website is for informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. This document is not a substitute for legal advice and may not address every factual scenario. If you have a legal question, we encourage you to contact your favorite Bradford & Barthel, LLP attorney to discuss the legal issues applicable to your unique case. No website is entirely secure, so please be cautious with information provided through the contact form or email. Do not assume confidentiality exists in anything you send through this website or email, until an attorney/client relationship is formed.