Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
December 16, 2013


December 16, 2013


This case is decided pursuant to Chapter 410 of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act and the Rules of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation. For the reasons discussed herein, the Hearing Officer determines that the Claimant is not entitled to a trial of work hardening x80 hours for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).


On December 16, 2013, Virginia Rodriguez-Gomez, a Division hearing officer, held a contested case hearing to decide the following disputed issues:

Is the preponderance of the evidence contrary to the decision of the IRO that the Claimant is not entitled to a trial of work hardening x80 hours for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury)?


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

Respondent/Carrier appeared and was represented by JF, attorney.


The following witnesses testified:

For Claimant: Claimant and JT, D. C

For Carrier: None.

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-A through CR-E.


The Claimant, an adaptive educational teacher, requested that she be approved for 80 hours of a work hardening program for her compensable injury of (Date of Injury), and in particular for her left knee as requested by JT, D.C. The request was denied by a utilization review agent (URA) and again upon a request for reconsideration. The Claimant appealed the reconsideration denial to the Independent Review Organization (IRO). In its denial for the requested work hardening program, the IRO noted that the Claimant was post-injury more than 2 years and that the Claimant did not have a job to return to and therefore, work hardening for specific essential job tasks to be performed was not met.

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 in making decisions about the care of individual patients. 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. 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 (sic) 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 criteria for assessing the medical necessity of the health care at issue:

Criteria for admission to a Work Hardening (WH) Program:

  1. Prescription: The program has been recommended by a physician or nurse case manager, and a prescription has been provided.
  2. Screening Documentation: Approval of the program should include evidence of a screening evaluation. This multidisciplinary examination should include the following components:
  3. History including demographic information, date and description of injury, history of previous injury, diagnosis/diagnoses, work status before the injury, work status after the injury, history of treatment for the injury (including medications), history of previous injury, current employability, future employability, and time off work;
  4. Review of systems including other non work-related medical conditions;
  5. Documentation of musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, vocational, motivational, behavioral, and cognitive status by a physician, chiropractor, or physical and/or occupational therapist (and/or assistants);
  6. Diagnostic interview with a mental health provider;
  7. Determination of safety issues and accommodation at the place of work injury. Screening should include adequate testing to determine if the patient has attitudinal and/or behavioral issues that are appropriately addressed in a multidisciplinary work hardening program. The testing should also be intensive enough to provide evidence that there are no psychosocial or significant pain behaviors that should be addressed in other types of programs, or will likely prevent successful participation and return-to-employment after completion of a work hardening program. Development of the patient’s program should reflect this assessment.
  8. Job demands: A work-related musculoskeletal deficit has been identified with the addition of evidence of physical, functional, behavioral, and/or vocational deficits that preclude ability to safely achieve current job demands. These job demands are generally reported in the medium or higher demand level (i.e., not clerical/sedentary work). There should generally be evidence of a valid mismatch between documented, specific essential job tasks and the patient’s ability to perform these required tasks (as limited by the work injury and associated deficits).
  9. Functional capacity evaluations (FCEs): A valid FCE should be performed, administered and interpreted by a licensed medical professional. The results should indicate consistency with maximal effort, and demonstrate capacities below an employer verified physical demands analysis (PDA). Inconsistencies and/or indication that the patient has performed below maximal effort should be addressed prior to treatment in these programs.
  10. Previous PT: There is evidence of treatment with an adequate trial of active physical rehabilitation with improvement followed by plateau, with evidence of no likely benefit from continuation of this previous treatment. Passive physical medicine modalities are not indicated for use in any of these approaches.
  11. Rule out surgery: The patient is not a candidate for whom surgery, injections, or other treatments would clearly be warranted to improve function (including further diagnostic evaluation in anticipation of surgery).
  12. Healing: Physical and medical recovery sufficient to allow for progressive reactivation and participation for a minimum of 4 hours a day for three to five days a week.
  13. Other contraindications: There is no evidence of other medical, behavioral, or other comorbid conditions (including those that are non work-related) that prohibits participation in the program or contradicts successful return-to-work upon program completion.
  14. RTW plan: A specific defined return-to-work goal or job plan has been established, communicated and documented. The ideal situation is that there is a plan agreed to by the employer and employee. The work goal to which the employee should return must have demands that exceed the claimant’s current validated abilities.
  15. Drug problems: There should be documentation that the claimant’s medication regimen will not prohibit them from returning to work (either at their previous job or new employment). If this is the case, other treatment options may be required, for example a program focused on detoxification.
  16. Program documentation: The assessment and resultant treatment should be documented and be available to the employer, insurer, and other providers. There should (sic) documentation of the proposed benefit from the program (including functional, vocational, and psychological improvements) and the plans to undertake this improvement. The assessment should indicate that the program providers are familiar with the expectations of the planned job, including skills necessary. Evidence of this may include site visitation, videotapes or functional job descriptions.
  17. Further mental health evaluation: Based on the initial screening, further evaluation by a mental health professional may be recommended. The results of this evaluation may suggest that treatment options other than these approaches may be required, and all screening evaluation information should be documented prior to further treatment planning.
  18. Supervision: Supervision is recommended under a physician, chiropractor, occupational therapist, or physical therapist with the appropriate education, training and experience. This clinician should provide on-site supervision of daily activities, and participate in the initial and final evaluations. They should design the treatment plan and be in charge of changes required. They are also in charge of direction of the staff.
  19. Trial: Treatment is not supported for longer than 1-2 weeks without evidence of patient compliance and demonstrated significant gains as documented by subjective and objective improvement in functional abilities. Outcomes should be presented that reflect the goals proposed upon entry, including those specifically addressing deficits identified in the screening procedure. A summary of the patient’s physical and functional activities performed in the program should be included as an assessment of progress.
  20. Concurrently working: The patient who has been released to work with specific restrictions may participate in the program while concurrently working in a restricted capacity, but the total number of daily hours should not exceed 8 per day while in treatment.
  21. Conferences:There should be evidence of routine staff conferencing regarding progress and plans for discharge. Daily treatment activity and response should be documented.
  22. Voc rehab: Vocational consultation should be available if this is indicated as a significant barrier. This would be required if the patient has no job to return to.
  23. Post-injury cap: The worker must be no more than 2 years past date of injury. Workers that have not returned to work by two-years post injury generally do not improve from intensive work hardening programs. If the worker is greater than one-year post injury a comprehensive multidisciplinary program may be warranted if there is clinical suggestion of psychological barrier to recovery (but these more complex programs may also be justified as early as 8-12 weeks, see Chronic pain programs). Exceptions to the 2-year post-injury cap may be made for patients with injuries that have required long-term medical care; i.e., extensive burns, diagnoses requiring multiple surgical procedures, or recent (within 6 months) completion of the last surgery, for patients who do not have the psychological barriers to return to work that would qualify them for a CPM program. (L&I, 2013)
  24. Program timelines: These approaches are highly variable in intensity, frequency and duration. APTA, AOTA and utilization guidelines for individual jurisdictions may be inconsistent. In general, the recommendations for use of such programs will fall within the following ranges: These approaches are necessarily intensive with highly variable treatment days ranging from 4-8 hours with treatment ranging from 3-5 visits per week. The entirety of this treatment should not exceed 20 full-day visits over 4 weeks, or no more than 160 hours (allowing for part-day sessions if required by part-time work, etc., over a longer number of weeks). A reassessment after 1-2 weeks should be made to determine whether completion of the chosen approach is appropriate, or whether treatment of greater intensity is required.
  25. Discharge documentation: At the time of discharge the referral source and other predetermined entities should be notified. This may include the employer and the insurer. There should be evidence documented of the clinical and functional status, recommendations for return to work, and recommendations for follow-up services. Patient attendance and progress should be documented including the reason(s) for termination including successful program completion or failure. This would include noncompliance, declining further services, or limited potential to benefit. There should also be documentation if the patient is unable to participate due to underlying medical conditions including substance dependence.
  26. Repetition: Upon completion of a rehabilitation program (e.g., work conditioning, work hardening, outpatient medical rehabilitation, or chronic pain/functional restoration program) neither re-enrollment in nor repetition of the same or similar rehabilitation program is medically warranted for the same condition or injury.

The Claimant presented the testimony of JT, D.C., who stated that although the ODG set out criteria of having a job and working on essential job functions for a specific job, it also set out criterion number 17 wherein a vocational counselor is provided in cases wherein a Claimant has no job to return to. As such, he argued that a job to return to is not necessarily a requirement for a work hardening program once all the criteria are taken into account as a whole. The Claimant testified that she had been attempting to get back into the workforce, but had been unable to do so due to the condition of her left leg. A review of the evidence, however, did show that the Claimant is post 5 years from her date of injury and she did not have a job offer despite possessing additional superintendent and principal certifications. Even Dr. T agreed that the Claimant did not meet the 2 year time criterion. The evidence presented by the Claimant did not overcome the IRO’s decision that she was not entitled to the requested work hardening program for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).

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.


  1. The parties stipulated to the following facts:
    1. Venue is proper in the (City) Field Office of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation.
    2. On (Date of Injury), Claimant was the employee of (Employer), Employer, and sustained a compensable injury.
    3. On (Date of Injury), Employer provided workers’ compensation insurance coverage via self-insurance.
  2. Carrier delivered to Claimant and Provider 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.
  3. The evidence-based medical evidence presented by the Claimant did not overcome the IRO’s decision that the Claimant is not entitled to a trial of work hardening x80 hours for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).
  4. A trial of work hardening x80 hours is not health care reasonably required for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).


  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 a trial of work hardening x80 hours is not health care reasonably required for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).


Claimant is not entitled to a trial of work hardening x80 hours for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).


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) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is




Signed this 16th day of December, 2013.

Virginia Rodriguez-Gomez
Hearing Officer

End of Document