Have you ever considered just what the phrase “total knee replacement” means? It seems so self-explanatory that any answer must be “well, it means the whole knee has been replaced.”
In reality, we should rename the surgery to “partial bone augmentation” to avoid the confusion that was experienced by an applicant’s attorney during a recent cross-examination of a well-known orthopedic surgeon serving as a PQME on a case where the applicant had a total knee replacement.
While I was defending this cross-examination, applicant’s attorney very-ably laid the foundational questions and basis for why there should be no apportionment to prior non-industrial degenerative changes in the knee since the “whole knee” had been removed.
Now this strategy is being used by applicant’s attorneys on a regular basis with surgeries such as a total knee, hip replacement, shoulder repair, and other surgeries that are correcting not only the industrial injury but also correcting the prior non-industrial complaints. The goal is to get the doctor to testify that the prior injury has been corrected, and therefore there is no basis for apportionment to non-industrial factors.
When applicant’s attorney asked the doctor if the removal of the knee means that the non-industrially injured tissue is also gone, the doctor replied “Oh no!” The PQME went on to explain that the total knee replacement surgery only removes a portion of the bone in the knee and the ACL and PCL. However, the REST of the knee is still present. All the skin, nerves, muscle, blood vessels, knee cap, the MCL and the LCL, and the synovium are all still present after the surgery.
The continued presence of the synovium was very significant to the PQME. This portion of the knee swells due to rheumatoid arthritis, and the swelling can cause weakness to the surrounding muscles and ligaments. This weakness results in pain which is felt in the nerves of the synovium. All of this remains after a total knee replacement.
Furthermore, the PQME went on to testify that the portions of the bone that are removed in a total knee replacement do not have pain-sensing nerves so the total knee replacement procedure will not reduce the overall level of pain. All the portions of the knee that had been damaged by non-industrial wear and tear, arthritis, and inflammation were still present after the total knee procedure, and therefore the apportionment to those non-industrial conditions should also remain.
The key factor for this orthopedist was the continued presence of the injured tissue and pain receptors which formed the basis for apportionment to the prior injury. The fact that some of the knee bone had been removed was essentially irrelevant for apportionment purposes.
The testimony by the PQME essentially put a stop in this case to any use of Hikida to eliminate apportionment due to subsequent industrial surgery. Expanding the limited holding in Hikida (which held that there is no apportionment to a new injury caused by industrial treatment) is a goal of CAAA, and an understanding of the specifics of a medical procedure, especially a surgery, is essential to countering a claim that apportionment is removed following surgery.
This article was written by Zane P. Uribarri, who is an experienced workers’ compensation defense attorney at the Law Offices of Bradford & Barthel’s Ontario office. If you have questions about workers’ compensation surgeries, permanent disability ratings, the Hikida case, or any other workers’ compensation defense issues, please feel free to contact Zane via phone (909.476.0552 Ext. 1349) or email.
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.