Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
February 2, 2010
Concurrent Medical Necessity


February 2, 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 February 1, 2010, to decide the following disputed issue:

  1. Is the preponderance of the evidence contrary to the decision of the Independent Review Organization (IRO) that a cervical translaminar epidural steroid injection is not reasonably required health care for the compensable injury of ____________?


Petitioner/Claimant appeared and was assisted by RB, ombudsman. Respondent/Carrier appeared and was represented by PB, attorney.


Claimant sustained a compensable injury on ____________, when he was struck by a part falling from a crane at work. He developed neck pain without radiation, headaches, and low back pain that radiated down his leg after the accident. He initially treated with the company doctor, Dr. C, and was referred to Dr. W, MD for additional treatment. Dr. W has requested preauthorization of a cervical translaminar epidural steroid injection to address Claimant's ongoing neck pain.

On October 8, 2009, Dr. M, MD reviewed the request and determined that the requested procedure was not medically necessary in light of the lack of MRI findings and physical exam findings that failed to reveal evidence of radiculopathy, motor deficits, or neurological deficits. Dr. M's decision was appealed. After several unsuccessful attempts to discuss the request with Dr. W, Dr. D, MD also determined that the request for a cervical translaminar epidural steroid injection at C4-5 and C5-6 is not medically necessary or appropriate. Dr. D referenced the criteria for the diagnostic and therapeutic use of epidural steroid injections in the treatment of neck and upper back injuries found in the Official Disability Guidelines (ODG). Carrier's denial of the request for preauthorization was appealed to an Independent Review Organization appointed by the Texas Department of Insurance (the Department).

The Department appointed (Independent Review Organization) as the IRO. The IRO submitted the case to a board certified orthopedic surgeon licensed in Texas. On November 24, 2009, the IRO issued its report. The physician reviewer stated that there were no imaging findings of neural compression and that there was no documentation of radiculopathy on physical examination. Relying on the provisions of the ODG, the physician reviewer upheld Carrier's prior adverse determinations. Claimant thereafter requested a Contested Case Hearing to appeal the IRO decision. Division Rule 133.308 (t) states: "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."

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 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.

The ODG treatment guidelines for the neck and upper back, states:

Epidural steroid injection (ESI)

Recommended as an option for treatment of radicular pain (defined as pain in dermatomal distribution with corroborative findings of radiculopathy). See specific criteria for use below. In a recent Cochrane review, there was one study that reported improvement in pain and function at four weeks and also one year in individuals with chronic neck pain with radiation. (Peloso-Cochrane, 2006) (Peloso, 2005) Other reviews have reported moderate short-term and long-term evidence of success in managing cervical radiculopathy with interlaminar ESIs. (Stav, 1993) (Castagnera, 1994) Some have also reported moderate evidence of management of cervical nerve root pain using a transforaminal approach. (Bush, 1996) (Cyteval, 2004) A recent retrospective review of interlaminar cervical ESIs found that approximately two-thirds of patients with symptomatic cervical radiculopathy from disc herniation were able to avoid surgery for up to 1 year with treatment. Success rate was improved with earlier injection (< 100 days from diagnosis). (Lin, 2006) There have been recent case reports of cerebellar infarct and brainstem herniation as well as spinal cord infarction after cervical transforaminal injection. (Beckman, 2006) (Ludwig, 2005) Quadriparesis with a cervical ESI at C6-7 has also been noted (Bose, 2005) and the American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims Project database revealed 9 deaths or cases of brain injury after cervical ESI (1970-1999). (Fitzgibbon, 2004) These reports were in contrast to a retrospective review of 1,036 injections that showed that there were no catastrophic complications with the procedure. (Ma, 2005) The American Academy of Neurology recently concluded that epidural steroid injections may lead to an improvement in radicular lumbosacral 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, and there is insufficient evidence to make any recommendation for the use of epidural steroid injections to treat radicular cervical pain. (Armon, 2007) There is evidence for short-term symptomatic improvement of radicular symptoms with epidural or selective root injections with corticosteroids, but these treatments did not appear to decrease the rate of open surgery. (Haldeman, 2008) (Benyamin, 2009) See the Low Back Chapter for more information and references.

Criteria for the use of Epidural steroid injections, therapeutic:

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) and corroborated by imaging studies and/or electrodiagnostic testing. (Emphasis added.)

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

(3) Injections should be performed using fluoroscopy (live x-ray) for guidance

(4) If used for diagnostic purposes, a maximum of two injections should be performed. A second block is not recommended if there is inadequate response to the first block. Diagnostic blocks should be at 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) In the therapeutic phase, repeat blocks should only be offered if there is at least 50% pain relief for six to eight weeks, with a general recommendation of no more than 4 blocks per region per year.

(8) Repeat injections should be based on continued objective documented pain and function response.

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

(10) It is currently not recommended to perform epidural blocks on the same day of treatment as facet blocks or stellate ganglion blocks or 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.

Criteria for the use of Epidural steroid injections, diagnostic:

To determine the level of radicular pain, in cases where diagnostic imaging is ambiguous, including the examples below:

(1) To help to evaluate a pain generator when physical signs and symptoms differ from that found on imaging studies;

(2) To help to determine pain generators when there is evidence of multi-level nerve root compression;

(3) To help to determine pain generators when clinical findings are suggestive of radiculopathy (e.g. dermatomal distribution) but imaging studies are inconclusive;

(4) To help to identify the origin of pain in patients who have had previous spinal surgery.

Dr. W requested preauthorization for a translaminar injection at two levels. The ODG expressly states that no more than one translaminar level should be injected at a single session. Dr. W did not testify regarding his recommendation for a cervical translaminar epidural steroid injection, there was no documentation of cervical radiculopathy in the medical records presented, and there was no evidence based medicine offered to support the departure from the ODG recommendations. The preponderance of the evidence supports the determination of the IRO.

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 sustained a compensable injury while employed by (Employer).

C.The Texas Department of Insurance appointed (Independent Review Organization) as the IRO in this matter.

  • 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 offered no evidence based medicine contrary to the IRO decision to support the request for a cervical translaminar epidural steroid injection.
  • A cervical translaminar epidural steroid injection 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 IRO that a cervical translaminar epidural steroid injection is not reasonably required medical care for the compensable injury of ____________.


    Claimant is not entitled to a cervical translaminar epidural steroid injection 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 AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is


    211 EAST 7TH STREET, SUITE 620

    AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701-3232.

    Signed this 2nd day of February, 2010.

    Hearing Officer

    End of Document