Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
Title:
14042-nr
Date:
February 5, 2014
Type:

14042-nr

February 5, 2014

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.

ISSUE

A contested case hearing was held on February 5, 2014 to decide the following disputed issue:

Is the preponderance of the evidence contrary to the decision of the Independent Review Organization (IRO) that the Claimant is not entitled to an L3-4 ESI, IV sedation, fluoro for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury)?

PARTIES PRESENT

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

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

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Claimant sustained a compensable injury on (Date of Injury), when he fell approximately eight feet while standing on a tractor-trailer. Claimant underwent an MRI of the lumbar spine on November 12, 2012 which revealed findings of a sub-acute L3 anterior wedging compression fracture. Claimant has undergone physical therapy and a percutaneous vertebral augmentation at L3. Dr. G, Claimant’s orthopedic surgeon, has recommended an L3-4 ESI with IV sedation and fluoroscopic guidance which was denied by the Carrier and appealed to an IRO.

The IRO reviewer, identified as board certified in anesthesiology and pain management, upheld the Carrier’s denial. The IRO reviewer noted that an ESI would be indicated for low back pain if Claimant had significant clinical findings of radiculopathy. The IRO reviewer stated that there was no information submitted regarding Claimant’s “confirmation of radiculopathy” and no imaging studies were submitted to confirm neuro-compressive findings. The IRO reviewer also noted that there was no information submitted regarding the need for IV sedation. The IRO reviewer concluded that the requested procedure was not medically necessary.

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 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(s), "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."

ODG 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, reduction of medication use and avoiding surgery, but this treatment alone offers no significant long-term functional benefit.

  1. Radiculopathy (due to herniated nucleus pulposus, but not spinal stenosis) must be documented. Objective findings on examination need to be present. Radiculopathy must be corroborated by imaging studies and/or electrodiagnostic testing.
  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 supported. This is generally referred to as the “therapeutic phase.” Indications for repeat blocks include acute exacerbation of pain, or new onset of radicular symptoms. The general consensus recommendation is for no more than 4 blocks per region per year. (CMS, 2004) (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.)

Sedation: There is no evidence-based literature to make a firm recommendation as to sedation during an ESI. The use of sedation introduces some potential diagnostic and safety issues, making unnecessary use less than ideal. A major concern is that sedation may result in the inability of the patient to experience the expected pain and paresthesias associated with spinal cord irritation. This is of particular concern in the cervical region. (Hodges 1999) Routine use is not recommended except for patients with anxiety. The least amount of sedation for the shortest duration of effect is recommended. The general agent recommended is a benzodiazepine. (Trentman 2008) (Kim 2007) (Cuccuzzella 2006) While sedation is not recommended for facet injections (especially with opioids) because it may alter the anesthetic diagnostic response, sedation is not generally necessary for an ESI but is not contraindicated. As far as monitored anesthesia care (MAC) administered by someone besides the surgeon, there should be evidence of a pre-anesthetic exam and evaluation, prescription of anesthesia care, completion of the record, administration of medication and provision of post-op care. Supervision services provided by the operating physician are considered part of the surgical service provided.

Claimant testified that he continues to experience low back pain and that Dr. G recommended an ESI to relieve Claimant’s lumbar spine symptoms. Claimant testified that he has no anxiety about undergoing the procedure and he did not know why Dr. G requested IV sedation. Dr. S, board certified orthopedic surgeon, testified that, based on his review of Claimant’s medical records, Claimant did not meet the ODG recommendations to undergo an L3-4 ESI with IV sedation. The medical records presented fail to identify objective findings of radiculopathy and there have been no corroborating diagnostic studies to justify the necessity of a lumbar ESI.

Based on the evidence presented, Claimant failed to prove that he meets the requirements in the ODG for the requested procedure and he failed to provide an evidence-based medical opinion sufficient to contradict the determination of the IRO. The preponderance of the evidence is not contrary to the IRO decision that Claimant is not entitled to an L3-4 ESI, IV sedation, fluoro for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).

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:
    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.
    3. Claimant sustained a compensable injury on (Date of Injury).
    4. The IRO determined that the proposed L3-4 ESI, IV sedation, fluoro is not medically necessary for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).
  2. 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.
  3. Claimant does not meet the recommendations of the ODG for L3-4 ESI, IV sedation, fluoro and he failed to present other evidence-based medicine supporting the necessity for this procedure.
  4. An L3-4 ESI, IV sedation, fluoro 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 is not contrary to the decision of the IRO that an L3-4 ESI, IV sedation, fluoro is not health care reasonably required for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).

DECISION

Claimant is not entitled to an L3-4 ESI, IV sedation, fluoro 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 TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is:

RICHARD GERGASKO

6210 EAST HIGHWAY 290

AUSTIN, TX 78723

Signed this 5th day of February, 2014.

Carol A. Fougerat
Hearing Officer

End of Document
Top