Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
Title:
12072-m6r
Date:
February 6, 2012

12072-m6r

February 6, 2012

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 30, 2012 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 an EMG/NCV of the right lower extremity for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury)?

PARTIES PRESENT

Claimant appeared, and was assisted by Ombudsman BT; Carrier appeared, and was represented by Attorney SS.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Claimant sustained a compensable low back injury, and his doctor has recommended that he undergo a second EMG/NCV test. Claimant described his ongoing symptoms, and expressed his wish to undergo the proposed test

DISCUSSION

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(22-a) 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(18-a) 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, and 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. 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(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."

With regard to an EMG and NCV, respectively, the ODG states as follows:

Recommended as an option (needle, not surface). EMGs (electromyography) may be useful to obtain unequivocal evidence of radiculopathy, after 1-month conservative therapy, but EMG's are not necessary if radiculopathy is already clinically obvious. (Bigos, 1999) (Ortiz-Corredor, 2003) (Haig, 2005) No correlation was found between intraoperative EMG findings and immediate postoperative pain, but intraoperative spinal cord monitoring is becoming more common and there may be benefit in surgery with major corrective anatomic intervention like fracture or scoliosis or fusion where there is significant stenosis. (Dimopoulos, 2004) EMG’s may be required by the AMA Guides for an impairment rating of radiculopathy. (AMA, 2001) (Note: Needle EMG and H-reflex tests are recommended, but Surface EMG and F-wave tests are not very specific and therefore are not recommended. See Surface electromyography.)

Not recommended. There is minimal justification for performing nerve conduction studies when a patient is presumed to have symptoms on the basis of radiculopathy. (Utah, 2006) See also the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Chapter for more details on NCS. Studies have not shown portable nerve conduction devices to be effective. EMGs (electromyography) are recommended as an option (needle, not surface) to obtain unequivocal evidence of radiculopathy, after 1-month conservative therapy, but EMG's are not necessary if radiculopathy is already clinically obvious.

As noted above, Claimant, as the party appealing the IRO decision, bears the burden of overcoming that decision by the preponderance of evidence-based medical evidence, a goal he sought to accomplish through the use of his medical records. However, his records reveal that he has been diagnosed with radiculopathy, and the ODG states that this diagnosis obviates the need for an EMG test. Moreover, the ODG states that an NCV test is not recommended, and the content of Claimant’s medical records does not overcome the presumption that the NCV test is unnecessary.

For the reasons noted, it is appropriate to determine that Claimant has not met his burden of proof, and that a decision in favor of Carrier/Respondent will be entered as to the sole issue presented for resolution herein.

Even though all the evidence presented may not have been discussed in detail, it was considered; the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are based on all of the evidence presented.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. On (Date of Injury), Claimant was employed by (Employer), Employer.
  2. On (Date of Injury), Employer subscribed to a policy of workers' compensation insurance issued by the Ace American Insurance Company, Carrier.
  3. On (Date of Injury), Claimant's residence was located within seventy-five miles of the (City) office of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation.
  4. 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.
  5. On (Date of Injury), Claimant sustained damage or harm to the physical structure of his body while he was within the course and scope of his employment with Employer.
  6. The injury referenced in the previous Finding of Fact arose out of Claimant's employment with Employer.
  7. An EMG/NCV of the right lower extremity 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-based medicine is not contrary to the decision of the Independent Review Organization that an EMG/NCV of the right lower extremity is not health care reasonably required for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).

DECISION

Claimant is not entitled to an EMG/NCV of the right lower extremity 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 ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is

C T CORPORATION SYSTEM

350 NORTH ST. PAUL STREET

DALLAS, TEXAS 75201

Signed this 6th day of February, 2012.

Ellen Vannah
Hearing Officer

End of Document
Top