Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
January 4, 2010
Concurrent Medical Necessity


January 4, 2010


This case is decided pursuant to Chapter 410 of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act and Rules of the Division of Workers’ Compensation adopted thereunder.


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

Is the preponderance of the evidence contrary to the decision of the Independent Review Organization (IRO) that Claimant is not entitled to bilateral lumbar facet injections at L4-S1 for the compensable injury of _________?


Petitioner/Claimant appeared and was assisted by JT, ombudsman.

Respondent/Carrier was represented by MM, attorney.


Dr. O recommended that Claimant undergo bilateral lumbar facet injections at L4-S1. Two utilization reviewers denied the request, citing the Official Disability Guidelines (ODG). One reviewer commented that medical records did not document findings showing that Claimant met the ODG signs and symptoms for facet joint pain. The other wrote that there was no documentation of a thorough physical examination of the lumbar spine to rule out radiculopathy. The IRO reviewer, who is board certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation as well as in pain management, relied on the ODG and quoted the first reviewer in upholding the adverse determination for the requested procedure.

Texas Labor Code §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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 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 (t), "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 provides the following for facet joint pain, signs and symptoms:

Recommend diagnostic criteria below. Diagnostic blocks are required as there are no findings on history, physical or imaging studies that consistently aid in making this diagnosis. Controlled comparative blocks have been suggested due to the high false-positive rates (17% to 47% in the lumbar spine), but the use of this technique has not been shown to be cost-effective or to prevent a false-positive response to a facet neurotomy. (Bogduk, 2005) (Cohen 2007) (Bogduk, 2000) (Cohen2, 2007) (Mancchukonda 2007) (Dreyfuss 2000) (Manchikanti 2003) The most commonly involved lumbar joints are L4-5 and L5-S1. (Dreyfus, 2003) In the lumbar region, the majority of patients have involvement in no more than two levels. (Manchikanti, 2004)

Mechanism of injury: The cause of this condition is largely unknown, but suggested etiologies have included microtrauma, degenerative changes, and inflammation of the synovial capsule. The overwhelming majority of cases are thought to be the result of repetitive strain and/or low-grade trauma accumulated over the course of a lifetime. Less frequently, acute trauma is thought to be the mechanism, resulting in tearing of the joint capsule or stretching beyond physiologic limits. Osteoarthritis of the facet joints is commonly found in association with degenerative joint disease. (Cohen 2007)

Symptoms: There is no reliable pain referral pattern, but it is suggested that pain from upper facet joints tends to extend to the flank, hip and upper lateral thighs, while the lower joint mediated pain tends to penetrate deeper into the thigh (generally lateral and posterior). Infrequently, pain may radiate into the lateral leg or even more rarely into the foot. In the presence of osteophytes, synovial cysts or facet hypertrophy, radiculopathy may also be present. (Cohen 2007) In 1998, Revel et al. suggested that the presence of the following were helpful in identifying patients with this condition: (1) age > 65; (2) pain relieved when supine; (3) no increase in pain with coughing, hyperextension, forward flexion, rising from flexion or extension/rotation. (Revel, 1998) Recent research has corroborated that pain on extension and/or rotation (facet loading) is a predictor of poor results from neurotomy. (Cohen2, 2007) The condition has been described as both acute and chronic. (Resnick, 2005)

Radiographic findings: There is no support in the literature for the routine use of imaging studies to diagnose lumbar facet medicated pain. Studies have been conflicting in regards to CT and/or MRI evidence of lumbar facet disease and response to diagnostic blocks or neurotomy. (Cohen 2007) Degenerative changes in facets identified by CT do not correlate with pain and are part of the natural degenerative process. (Kalichman, 2008) See also Facet joint diagnostic blocks (injections); & Segmental rigidity (diagnosis).

Suggested indicators of pain related to facet joint pathology (acknowledging the contradictory findings in current research):

(1) Tenderness to palpation in the paravertebral areas (over the facet region);

(2) A normal sensory examination;

(3) Absence of radicular findings, although pain may radiate below the knee;

(4) Normal straight leg raising exam.

Indictors 2-4 may be present if there is evidence of hypertrophy encroaching on the neural foramen

Claimant's evidence included two letters from Dr. O. In the first letter, Dr. O wrote that he performed a thorough examination of Claimant. Notes from that examination were not in evidence. Dr. O also commented that literature from research shows that facet involvement and pain are caused by a bulging; however, he did not cite any specific study. In the second letter, he concluded that Claimant's pain is over the facet joints and is not radicular but he did not reference any objective testing to document his opinions.

Claimant's evidence did not prove that he meets the criteria for the requested procedure. The evidence did not show that medical records document tenderness to palpation in the areas over the facet region, normal sensory examination, lack of radiculopathy, and normal straight leg raising examination.

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.


  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, who was the employee of (Employer), sustained a compensable injury.

C.The IRO determined that the requested services were not reasonable and necessary health care services for the compensable injury of _________.

  • 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.
  • Claimant did not present evidence showing that he has the indications of pain related to facet joint pathology which are prerequisites in the ODG for bilateral lumbar facet injections.
  • Bilateral lumbar facet injections at L4-S1 is not health care reasonably required for the compensable injury of _________.

    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 bilateral lumbar facet injections at L4-S1 is not health care reasonably required for the compensable injury of _________.


    Claimant is not entitled to bilateral lumbar facet injections at L4-S1 for the compensable injury of _________.


    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 NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCECOMPANY OF HARTFORD and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is

    DALLAS, TEXAS 75201

    Signed this 4th day of January, 2010.

    Hearing Officer

    End of Document