Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
Title:
09083
Date:
January 30, 2009
Status:
Concurrent Medical Necessity

09083

January 30, 2009

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.

ISSUES

A contested case hearing was held on January 29, 2009, to decide the following disputed issue:

  1. Is the preponderance of the evidence contrary to the decision of the IRO that the claimant is not entitled to outpatient caudal epidural steroid injection #3 at right L2/3 for the compensable injury of ________________?

PARTIES PRESENT

Petitioner/Claimant appeared and was assisted by EJ, ombudsman. Respondent/Carrier appeared and was represented by MM, attorney.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Claimant sustained a significant low back injury resulting in three back surgeries, the last occurring in 1997. Since then, on occasion, he has had a single epidural steroid injection to alleviate the pain and keep him functional. Last summer, his doctor, Dr. S, recommended a series of three injections. Claimant had his first in June 2008 and experienced a 15-20% improvement. He had his second in August 2008 and experienced an 80-90% improvement. The third injection was denied. Dr. S testified he was not familiar with the Official Disability Guidelines regarding this treatment but that "the 'series of three' is the standard of care in the medical community." Dr. S did not supply any evidence-based medicine studies to support his request for the third injection.

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. Section 401.011(22-a)defines health care reasonably required 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: (A) evidence based medicine; or (B) if that evidence is not available, generally accepted standards of medical practice recognized in the medical community.” “Evidence based medicine” is further defined, by Section 401.011(18-a)as 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 in making decisions about the care of individual patients.

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, 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 Official Disability Guidelines.

The Official Disability Guidelines discusses epidural steroid injections:

Recommended as a possible option for short-term treatment of radicular pain (defined as pain in dermatomal distribution with corroborative findings of radiculopathy) with use in conjunction with active rehab efforts. See specific criteria for use below. Radiculopathy symptoms are generally due to herniated nucleus pulposus or spinal stenosis, although ESIs have not been found to be as beneficial a treatment for the latter condition.

Short-term symptoms: The American Academy of Neurology recently concluded that epidural steroid injections may lead to an improvement in radicular pain between 2 and 6 weeks following the injection, but they do not affect impairment of function or the need for surgery and do not provide long-term pain relief beyond 3 months. (ArmonBenzonDePalmaWilson-MacDonald, 2005)

Use for chronic pain: Chronic duration of symptoms (> 6 months) has also been found to decrease success rates with a threefold decrease found in patients with symptom duration > 24 months. The ideal time of either when to initiate treatment or when treatment is no longer thought to be effective has not been determined. (Cyteval, 2006) Indications for repeating ESIs in patients with chronic pain at a level previously injected (> 24 months) include a symptom-free interval or indication of a new clinical presentation at the level.

Transforaminal approach: Some groups suggest that there may be a preference for a transforaminal approach as the technique allows for delivery of medication at the target tissue site, and an advantage for transforaminal injections in herniated nucleus pulposus over translaminar or caudal injections has been suggested in the best available studies. (RiewVadWilson-MacDonald, 2005)

Fluoroscopic guidance: Fluoroscopic guidance with use of contrast is recommended for all approaches as needle misplacement may be a cause of treatment failure. (Young, 2007)

Factors that decrease success: Decreased success rates have been found in patients who are unemployed due to pain, who smoke, have had previous back surgery, have pain that is not decreased by medication, and/or evidence of substance abuse, disability or litigation. (CaretteBigosRozenbergBotwinDelportKhotButtermannSamantaBenzonDashfieldResnickAbdiKinkadePhysical therapy, or at least not require more than 2 additional visits to reinforce the home exercise program.

With discectomy: Epidural steroid administration during lumbar discectomy may reduce early neurologic impairment, pain, and convalescence and enhance recovery without increasing risks of complications. (Rasmussen, 2008)

Criteria for the use of Epidural steroid injections:

Note: The purpose of ESI is to reduce pain and inflammation, thereby facilitating progress in more active treatment programs, and avoiding surgery, but this treatment alone offers no significant long-term functional benefit.

(1) Radiculopathy must be documented. Objective findings on examination need to be present. For unequivocal evidence of radiculopathy, see AMA Guides, 5th Edition, page 382-383. (Andersson, 2000)

(2) Initially unresponsive to conservative treatment (exercises, physical methods, NSAIDs and muscle relaxants).

(3) Injections should be performed using fluoroscopy (live x-ray) and injection of contrast for guidance.

(4) Diagnostic Phase: At the time of initial use of an ESI (formally referred to as the “diagnostic phase” as initial injections indicate whether success will be obtained with this treatment intervention), a maximum of one to two injections should be performed. A repeat block is not recommended if there is inadequate response to the first block (< 30% is a standard placebo response). A second block is also not indicated if the first block is accurately placed unless: (a) there is a question of the pain generator; (b) there was possibility of inaccurate placement; or (c) there is evidence of multilevel pathology. In these cases a different level or approach might be proposed. There should be an interval of at least one to two weeks between injections.

(5) No more than two nerve root levels should be injected using transforaminal blocks.

(6) No more than one interlaminar level should be injected at one session.

(7) Therapeutic phase: If after the initial block/blocks are given (see “Diagnostic Phase” above) and found to produce pain relief of at least 50-70% pain relief for at least 6-8 weeks, additional blocks may be required. This is generally referred to as the “therapeutic phase.” Indications for repeat blocks include acute exacerbation of pain, or new onset of symptoms. The general consensus recommendation is for no more than 4 blocks per region per year. (Boswell, 2007)

(8) Repeat injections should be based on continued objective documented pain relief, decreased need for pain medications, and functional response.

(9) Current research does not support a routine use of a “series-of-three” injections in either the diagnostic or therapeutic phase. We recommend no more than 2 ESI injections for the initial phase and rarely more than 2 for therapeutic treatment.

(10) It is currently not recommended to perform epidural blocks on the same day of treatment as facet blocks or sacroiliac blocks or lumbar sympathetic blocks or trigger point injections as this may lead to improper diagnosis or unnecessary treatment.

(11) Cervical and lumbar epidural steroid injection should not be performed on the same day. (Doing both injections on the same day could result in an excessive dose of steroids, which can be dangerous, and not worth the risk for a treatment that has no long-term benefit.)

The Official Disability Guidelines further discusses epidural steroid injections in a "series of three":

Not recommended. Original recommendations that suggested a “series of three injections” generally did so prior to the advent of fluoroscopic guidance. These previous recommendations were based primarily on case studies and anecdotal evidence (Class IV and V data). (Abram, 1999) (Warr, 1972) (Hickey, 1987) There does not appear to be any evidence to support the current common practice of a series of injections. (Novak, 2008) Contemporary research studies with higher levels of evidence (including two controlled trials) have suggested that on average, two or less ESIs are required in patients with successful outcomes from the use of ESIs to treat disc related lumbar radiculopathy. (Lutz, 1998) (Vad, 2002) (Riew, 2000) While all of these latter studies have utilized repeat injections, there has been no evidence-based research to explain why this practice is required, or the mechanism for possible action. Since the introduction of fluoroscopically guided ESIs, it has been suggested that there is little evidence to repeat an accurately placed epidural injection in the presence of mono-radiculopathy, regardless of whether there is partial or no response. (McLain, 2005) A recent randomized controlled trial of blind ESIs found no evidence to support repeat injections, because at six weeks there was no significant difference found between the ESI group and a placebo controlled group in terms of any measured parameter. (Price, 2005) A repeat injection has been suggested if there is question of accurate dermatomal diagnosis, if pain may be secondary to a different generator, or in the case of multilevel pathology. (McLain, 2005) There is a lack of support for 2nd epidural steroid injection if the 1st is not effective. (Cuckler, 1985) With fluoroscopic guidance, there is little support to do a second epidural if there is no response to the first injection. There is little to no guidance in current literature to suggest the basis for the recommendation of a third ESI, and the routine use of this practice is not recommended.

In this case, the IRO doctor pointed out five criteria that the request to perform a third injection on Claimant did not meet according to the Official Disability Guidelines:

  1. Radiculopathy must be documented by physical examination and corroborated by imaging studies and/or electrodiagnostic testing.
  2. Initially unresponsive to conservative treatment (exercises, physical methods, NSAIDs and muscle relaxants).
  3. In the therapeutic phase, repeat blocks should only be offered if there is at lease 50% pain relief for six to eight weeks, with a general recommendation of no more than four blocks per region, per year.
  4. Repeat injections should be based on continued objective documented pain and functional response.
  5. Current research does not support a "series of three" injections in either the diagnostic or therapeutic phase. The Official Disability Guidelines recommends no more than two epidural steroid injections.

Claimant, with his medical records and testimony evidence, may be able to point out he has met several of these criteria; but, neither he nor his doctor presented evidence-based medicine formulated from credible scientific studies to support a third epidural steroid injection in a requested series of three. Claimant did not meet his burden of proof.

Even though all the evidence presented was not discussed, it was considered. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are based on all of the evidence presented.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. The parties stipulated to the following facts:

A.Venue is proper in the (City) Field Office of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation.

B. On ________________, Claimant was the employee of (Employer).

C.On ________________, Claimant sustained a compensable injury.

D.The Independent Review Organization determined Claimant should not have outpatient caudal epidural steroid injection #3 at right L2/3.

  • 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.
  • Outpatient caudal epidural steroid injection #3 at right L2/3 is not health care reasonably required for the compensable injury of ________________.
  • 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 outpatient caudal epidural steroid injection #3 at right L2/3 is not health care reasonably required for the compensable injury of ________________.

    DECISION

    Claimant is not entitled to outpatient caudal epidural steroid injection #3 at right L2/3 for the compensable injury of ________________.

    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 (SELF-INSURED) the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is

    CR

    (ADDRESS)

    (CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE)

    Signed this 30th day of January, 2009.

    KEN WROBEL
    Hearing Officer

    End of Document
    Top