Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
Title:
016013
Date:
December 15, 2015
Status:
Non-Network

016013

December 15, 2015

DECISION AND ORDER

This case is decided pursuant to Chapter 410 of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act and Rules of the Division of Workers’ Compensation adopted thereunder. For the reasons discussed herein, the Hearing Officer determines that Claimant is not entitled to left shoulder rotator cuff repair; manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).

ISSUES

A contested case hearing was held on December 10, 2015 to decide the following disputed issue:

Is the preponderance of the evidence contrary to the decision of the Independent Review Organization (IRO) that the claimant is not entitled to left shoulder rotator cuff repair; MUA for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury)?

PARTIES PRESENT

Petitioner/Claimant appeared and was assisted by DM, ombudsman. Respondent/Carrier appeared and was represented by BJ, attorney.

EVIDENCE PRESENTED

The following witnesses testified:

For Claimant: Claimant.

For Carrier: Dr. BS.

The following exhibits were admitted into evidence:

Hearing Officer’s Exhibits HO-1 and HO-2.

Claimant’s Exhibits C-1 through C-8.

Carrier’s Exhibits CR-1 through CR-11.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Claimant contested the determination of the IRO doctor who determined that she is not entitled to left shoulder rotator cuff repair; MUA. She relied on her medical records and the opinion of her treating doctor. Carrier argued that Claimant offered insufficient evidence-based medicine to overcome the IRO decision, which is based on the Official Disability Guidelines (ODG).

Texas Labor Code Section 408.021 provides that an employee who sustains a compensable injury is entitled to all health care reasonably required by the nature of the injury as and when needed. Health care reasonably required is further defined in Texas Labor Code Section 401.011 (22a) as health care that is clinically appropriate and considered effective for the injured employee's injury and provided in accordance with best practices consistent with evidence based medicine or, if evidence based medicine is not available, then generally accepted standards of medical practice recognized in the medical community. Health care under the Texas Workers' Compensation system must be consistent with evidence based medicine if that evidence is available. Evidence based medicine is further defined in Texas Labor Code Section 401.011 (18a) to be the use of the current best quality scientific and medical evidence formulated from credible scientific studies, including peer-reviewed medical literature and other current scientifically based texts and treatment and practice guidelines. The Commissioner of the Division of Workers' Compensation is required to adopt treatment guidelines that are evidence-based, scientifically valid, outcome-focused, and designed to reduce excessive or inappropriate medical care while safeguarding necessary medical care. Texas Labor Code Section 413.011(e). Medical services consistent with the medical policies and fee guidelines adopted by the commissioner are presumed reasonable in accordance with Texas Labor Code Section 413.017(1).

In accordance with the above statutory guidance, the Division of Workers' Compensation has adopted treatment guidelines by Division Rule 137.100. This rule directs health care providers to provide treatment in accordance with the current edition of the Official Disability Guidelines (ODG), and such treatment is presumed to be health care reasonably required as defined in the Texas Labor Code. Thus, the focus of any health care dispute starts with the health care set out in the ODG. Also, in accordance with Division Rule 133.308(s), "A decision issued by an IRO is not considered an agency decision and neither the Department nor the Division are considered parties to an appeal. In a Contested Case Hearing (CCH), the party appealing the IRO decision has the burden of overcoming the decision issued by an IRO by a preponderance of evidence-based medical evidence." The ODG addresses the necessity for the left shoulder rotator cuff tear as follows:

Recommended as indicated below. Repair of the rotator cuff is indicated for significant tears that impair activities by causing weakness of arm elevation or rotation, particularly acutely in younger workers. However, rotator cuff tears are frequently partial-thickness or smaller full-thickness tears. For partial-thickness rotator cuff tears and small full-thickness tears presenting primarily as impingement, surgery is reserved for cases failing conservative therapy for three months. The preferred procedure is usually arthroscopic decompression, but the outcomes from open repair are as good or better. Surgery is not indicated for patients with mild symptoms or those who have no limitations of activities. (Ejnisman-Cochrane, 2004) (Grant, 2004) Lesions of the rotator cuff are best thought of as a continuum, from mild inflammation and degeneration to full avulsions. Studies of normal subjects document the universal presence of degenerative changes and conditions, including full avulsions without symptoms. Conservative treatment has results similar to surgical treatment but without surgical risks. Studies evaluating results of conservative treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears have shown an 82-86% success rate for patients presenting within three months of injury. The efficacy of arthroscopic decompression for full-thickness tears depends on the size of the tear; one study reported satisfactory results in 90% of patients with small tears. A prior study by the same group reported satisfactory results in 86% of patients who underwent open repair for larger tears. Surgical outcomes are much better in younger patients with a rotator cuff tear, than in older patients, who may be suffering from degenerative changes in the rotator cuff. Referral for surgical consultation may be indicated for patients who have: Activity limitation for more than three months, plus existence of a surgical lesion; Failure of exercise programs to increase range of motion and strength of the musculature around the shoulder, plus existence of a surgical lesion; Clear clinical and imaging evidence of a lesion that has been shown to benefit, in both the short and long term, from surgical repair; Red flag conditions (e.g., acute rotator cuff tear in a young worker, glenohumeral joint dislocation, etc.). Suspected acute tears of the rotator cuff in young workers may be surgically repaired acutely to restore function; in older workers, these tears are typically treated conservatively at first. Partial-thickness tears are treated the same as impingement syndrome regardless of MRI findings. Outpatient rotator cuff repair is a well accepted and cost effective procedure. (Cordasco, 2000) Difference between surgery & exercise was not significant. (Brox, 1999) There is significant variation in surgical decision-making and a lack of clinical agreement among orthopaedic surgeons about rotator cuff surgery. (Dunn, 2005) For rotator cuff pain with an intact tendon, a trial of 3 to 6 months of conservative therapy is reasonable before orthopaedic referral. Patients with small tears of the rotator cuff may be referred to an orthopaedist after 6 to 12 weeks of conservative treatment. (Burbank2, 2008) Patients with workers' compensation claims have worse outcomes after rotator cuff repair. (Henn, 2008)

Revision rotator cuff repair: The results of revision rotator cuff repair are inferior to those of primary repair. While pain relief may be achieved in most patients, selection criteria should include patients with an intact deltoid origin, good-quality rotator cuff tissue, preoperative elevation above the horizontal, and only one prior procedure. (Djurasovic, 2001)

Recent research: Evidence on the pros and cons of various operative and nonoperative treatments for rotator cuff tears is limited and inconclusive, an AHRQ comparative effectiveness review concluded. While the data are sparse, patients improved substantially with all interventions; there were few clinically important differences between approaches, and complications were rare. Most patients try to resolve their pain and disability with a course of physical therapy before attempting surgery, but the study found very little good quality research to guide the choice of nonoperative treatment, the timing of treatment, and who would most benefit from various forms of treatment. Four out of five studies comparing surgical and nonsurgical management favored operative repair, but the evidence was too limited to make conclusions regarding comparative effectiveness. 113 studies comparing various operations found no differences in functional outcomes between open vs mini-open repair, mini-open vs arthroscopic repair, arthroscopic repairs with vs without acromioplasty, and single-row vs double-row fixation. Patients who had mini-open repair returned to work about a month earlier than patients who had open repair. On the other hand, functional improvement was better after open repair compared with arthroscopic debridement. With regard to adding continuous passive motion to postoperative physical therapy, 11 trials yielded moderate evidence for no difference in function or pain. One study found no difference in range of motion or strength, while another suggested that adding continuous passive motion shortened the time until return to work and the time to 90 degrees abduction. For other postoperative rehabilitation strategies, one study showed that progressive loading reduced pain compared to traditional loading. In general, though, most studies found no difference in health-related quality of life, function, pain, range of motion, and strength with one approach versus another (e.g., with or without aquatics, individualized vs at home alone, videotape vs therapist-based, etc.). In the 72 studies that assessed prognostic factors, older age, increasing tear size, and greater preoperative symptoms were consistently associated with recurrent tears, whereas gender, workers’ compensation status, and duration of symptoms usually did not predict poorer outcomes. (Seida, 2010) "Rotator cuff surgery is a viable option for many patients, but, as with any surgery, it is not for everybody," said AHRQ Director Carolyn M. Clancy, M.D. "This report has good news: most interventions work, and each patient should talk to his or her doctor about which to option to pursue." Most older patients who suffer a rotator cuff tear are first treated with up to 3 months of nonsurgical treatment such as pain and anti-inflammatory medications, exercise, and rest. If treatments other than surgery do not work, the rotator cuff may be repaired surgically, using a variety of methods ranging from minimally invasive techniques to an open operation. Patients can then undergo rehabilitation to restore their range of motion, muscle strength, and function following surgery. Rotator cuff tears also can occur in younger adults, usually as a result of traumatic injury. In such cases they are almost always treated with surgery. Some doctors have maintained that earlier surgery results in less pain and better use of the shoulder, leading to an earlier return to work and decreased costs; so, patients often face the difficult decision of opting for surgery rather than waiting for nonoperative treatments to work. However, researchers found little evidence that earlier surgery benefits patients. Comparative Effectiveness of Nonoperative and Operative Treatments for Rotator Cuff Tears is the newest comparative effectiveness report from the AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program. The Effective Health Care Program represents the leading federal effort to compare alternative treatments for health conditions and make the findings public, to help doctors, nurses, pharmacists and others work together with patients to choose the most effective treatments. (Clancy, 2010) This prospective cohort study concluded that PT is effective for most patients with atraumatic full-thickness rotator cuff tears and shoulder pain, without the need for surgery. At six weeks fewer than 10% of patients had decided to undergo surgery, and after 2 years, only 2% of the rest had opted for surgery. Patients did most of their physical therapy at home and usually made only 1 weekly visit to the physical therapist. (Kuhn, 2011) One-third of rotator cuff repairs fail, and 74% of the failures occur within three months of surgery. Healed tendons, or recurrent tears, at six months can predict outcomes at seven years. (Kluger, 2011) Not surprisingly, larger tears are harder to repair, and the retear rate based on rotator cuff tear size is: 10% for ≤2 cm2; 16% for 2–4 cm2; 31% for 4–6 cm2; 50% for 6–8 cm2; & 57% for >8 cm2. (Murrell, 2012) There is insufficient evidence to suggest efficacy in operative or nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff tears in in patients aged older than 60 years. (Downie, 2012) In this RCT, full-thickness rotator cuff repair outcomes were the same, with or without acromioplasty. Acromioplasty is commonly performed during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, but it does not improve outcomes by 2-year follow-up. (Abrams, 2014) Non-contrast MRI is sufficient for rotator cuff tears, and contrast enhancement is recommended for SLAP tears. (Spencer, 2013) (Farshad-Amacker, 2013) (Arnold, 2012) (Major, 2011) See also Stem cell autologous transplantation (shoulder).

The ODG further provides the following regarding manipulation under anesthesia:

Under study as an option in adhesive capsulitis. In cases that are refractory to conservative therapy lasting at least 3-6 months where range-of-motion remains significantly restricted (abduction less than 90°), manipulation under anesthesia may be considered. There is some support for manipulation under anesthesia in adhesive capsulitis, based on consistent positive results from multiple studies, although these studies are not high quality. (Colorado, 1998) (Kivimaki, 2001) (Hamdan, 2003) Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) for frozen shoulder may be an effective way of shortening the course of this apparently self-limiting disease and should be considered when conservative treatment has failed. MUA may be recommended as an option in primary frozen shoulder to restore early range of movement and to improve early function in this often protracted and frustrating condition. (Andersen, 1998) (Dodenhoff, 2000) (Cohen, 2000) (Othman, 2002) (Castellarin, 2004) Even though manipulation under anesthesia is effective in terms of joint mobilization, the method can cause iatrogenic intraarticular damage. (Loew, 2005) When performed by chiropractors, manipulation under anesthesia may not be allowed under a state's Medical Practice Act, since the regulations typically do not authorize a chiropractor to administer anesthesia and prohibit the use of any drug or medicine in the practice of chiropractic. (Sams, 2005) This case series concluded that MUA combined with early physical therapy alleviates pain and facilitates recovery of function in patients with frozen shoulder syndrome. (Ng, 2009) This study concluded that manipulation under anesthesia is a very simple and noninvasive procedure for shortening the course of frozen shoulder, an apparently self-limiting disease, and can improve shoulder function and symptoms within a short period of time, but there was less improvement in post-surgery frozen shoulders. (Wang, 2007) Two lower quality studies have recently provided some support for the procedure. In this study manipulation under suprascapular nerve block and intra-articular local anesthesia shortened the course of frozen shoulder (FS), although it is an apparently self-limiting disease. (Khan, 2009) In this study manipulation under anesthesia combined with arthroscopy was effective for primary frozen shoulder. (Sun, 2011) Frozen shoulder has a greater incidence, more severe course, and resistance to treatment in patients with diabetes mellitus compared with the general population, but outcomes for diabetic patients with frozen shoulder undergoing treatment with manipulation under general anesthesia (MUA) are the same as patients without diabetes. (Jenkins, 2012) In this case series, treatment of frozen shoulder by MUA led to improvement in shoulder motion and function at a mean 23 years after the procedure. (Vastamäki, 2012) The latest UK Health Technology Assessment on management of frozen shoulder concludes that there was very little evidence available for MUA and most of the studies identified had limitations. The single adequate study found no evidence of benefit of MUA over home exercise alone. Generalizability is somewhat unclear because of the limited information about previous interventions that participants had received and stage of frozen shoulder. (Maund, 2012) The fastest improvement occurs following the first month after MUA, but 6 months after MUA, shoulder active range of motion remains lower than the uninvolved extremity. (Sokk, 2012) In this study, six months after MUA, endurance time and net impulse remained impaired for the involved shoulder. (Sokk, 2013) According to an Indian study, the efficacy of MUA, injection, and PT are comparable for adhesive capsulitis. (Ghosh, 2012) It is currently unclear as to whether there is a difference in the clinical effectiveness of an arthroscopic capsular release compared to MUA in patients with recalcitrant idiopathic adhesive capsulitis. The quality of evidence available is low and the data available demonstrate little benefit. A high quality study is required to definitively evaluate the relative benefits of these procedures. (Grant, 2013) According to a systematic review of frozen shoulder treatments, outcomes with MUA are equivocal when compared to other treatment approaches. (Uppal, 2015) This study concluded that the best time for MUA, if non-operative treatment has failed to alleviate pain or limitation of shoulder motion is too cumbersome, might be between 6 and 9 months from the onset of the symptoms. (Vastamäki, 2015) See also Surgery for adhesive capsulitis. In other chapters, see the Low Back Chapter, where MUA is not recommended in the absence of vertebral fracture or dislocation; and the Knee Chapter, where MUA is recommended as an option for treatment of arthrofibrosis and/or after total knee arthroplasty, only after a trial (six weeks or more) of conservative treatment, and a single treatment session would then be recommended, not serial treatment sessions.

The IRO reviewer agreed with two utilization review doctors and opined that the requested treatment did not meet ODG criteria. Specifically, the IRO reviewer noted that Claimant did not undergo a full three month course of conservative treatment and there was insufficient clinical documentation submitted to justify the procedure. Both utilization review doctors supported the IRO’s opinion and noted that Claimant had had insufficient conservative care prior to the request for surgery. Carrier provided the testimony of Dr. BS, its peer review doctor, which supported the IRO and noted that the full conservative treatment is recommended by the ODG because many tears heal without the necessity of surgery. He noted this was particularly important in Claimant’s case given the nature of the tear found on her MRI.

Claimant provided a letter from Dr. F who opined that Claimant required the requested treatment. Dr. F noted that Clamant had a trial of three weeks of physical therapy which had no improvement. Claimant reflected that physical therapy ended because her prior facility was removed from the Carrier’s network before the program could be finished. Dr. F opined that this therapy actually worsened her condition and that she had difficulty sleeping at night. He states:

“Her treatment followed ODG treatment and worker’s comp (sic), and she has met all ODG guidelines. She is a candidate for surgery as she has failed conservative care. It is a compensable injury directly related to the work injury.”

Dr. F’s opinion did not establish that the preponderance of the evidence is contrary to the IRO. Claimant’s left shoulder MRI shows that Claimant has a partial-thickness rotator cuff tear. The ODG, which is cited above, reflects that “for partial-thickness rotator cuff tears and small full-thickness tears presenting primarily as impingement, surgery is reserved for cases failing conservative therapy for three months.” Claimant did not complete three months of conservative therapy, and Dr. F does not cite evidence-based medical studies to rebut the ODG, nor does he explain why the ODG does not apply in this situation. The mere fact that the treating doctor asserts that Claimant meets the ODG guidelines is insufficient to rebut the IRO’s opinion, nor do the medical records in evidence rebut the explanation of the IRO reviewer.

Claimant has the burden of proof on this case to show by the preponderance of evidence-based medical evidence that the disputed procedure is health care that is clinically appropriate and considered effective for her injury. Evidence-based medical evidence entails the opinion of a qualified expert that is supported by evidence-based medicine. The evidence presented at the hearing cannot be construed to constitute evidence-based medical evidence sufficient to overcome the decision of the IRO reviewer. As Claimant did not overcome the IRO decision by a preponderance of the evidence-based medical evidence, she has accordingly failed to meet her burden of proof.

The Hearing Officer considered all of the evidence admitted. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are based on an assessment of all of the evidence whether or not the evidence is specifically discussed in this Decision and Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. The parties stipulated to the following facts:
  2. Venue is proper in the (City) Field Office of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation.
  3. On (Date of Injury), Claimant was the employee of (Employer), Employer.
  4. On (Date of Injury), Employer provided workers’ compensation insurance through Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier.
  5. On (Date of Injury), Claimant sustained a compensable injury.
  • Carrier delivered to Claimant a single document stating the true corporate name of Carrier, and the name and street address of Carrier’s registered agent, which document was admitted into evidence as Hearing Officer’s Exhibit Number 2.
  • Left shoulder rotator cuff repair; MUA is not health care reasonably required for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).
  • CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    1. The Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation, has jurisdiction to hear this case.
    2. Venue is proper in the (City) Field Office.
    3. The preponderance of the evidence is not contrary to the decision of the IRO that Claimant is not entitled to left shoulder rotator cuff repair; MUA.

    DECISION

    Claimant is not entitled to left shoulder rotator cuff repair; MUA for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).

    ORDER

    Carrier is not liable for the benefits at issue in this hearing. Claimant remains entitled to medical benefits for the compensable injury in accordance with §408.021.

    The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is TEXAS MUTUAL INSURACE COMPANY, and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is

    RICHARD J. GERGASKO

    6210 EAST HIGHWAY 290

    AUSTIN, TEXAS 78723

    Signed this 15th day of December, 2015.

    BRITT CLARK
    Hearing Officer

    End of Document
    Top