Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
March 30, 2016


March 30, 2016


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 preponderance of the evidence is contrary to the decision of the Independent Review Organization (IRO) that Claimant is not entitled to 70 hours of work hardening for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).


A contested case hearing was held on March 21, 2016 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 70 hours of work hardening for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury)?


On behalf of Petitioner, Ms. AG was present as a lay representative. Claimant appeared and was assisted by CR, ombudsman. Respondent/Carrier was represented by LM, attorney.


The following witnesses testified:

For Claimant: AG and LN.

For Petitioner: None.

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-7.

Petitioner’s Exhibits: None.

Carrier’s Exhibits: CR-A through CR-N.


It is undisputed that on (Date of Injury), Claimant was employed as a firefighter and sustained a compensable injury. As a result of the compensable injury, the Carrier has accepted a left shoulder posterior labral tear and left pectoralis tendon tear. There are no disputes surrounding the extent of the compensable injury.

The requested procedure of 70 hours of work hardening was denied by the Carrier’s utilization review agents and referred to the IRO, who upheld the Carrier's denial. The Healthcare provider appealed the IRO’s determination against the requested treatment.

The IRO reviewer, a physician board certified in orthopedic surgery, noted the following as part of his rationale as to why he upheld the determination against the recommended work hardening treatment:

The submitted records fail to establish that the patient presents with a significant psychosocial component which would require a multidisciplinary program. Given that the patient is currently near his required physical demand level and these is documentation of significant psychosocial component, it is unclear why a work conditioning program has not been considered rather than a multidisciplinary work hardening program with a mental health treatment component.

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."

The following is noted in the ODG for work hardening:

Recommended as an option, depending on the availability of quality programs, using the criteria below. The best way to get an injured worker back to work is with a modified duty RTW program (see ODG Capabilities & Activity Modifications for Restricted Work), rather than a work hardening/conditioning program, but when an employer cannot provide this, a work hardening program specific to the work goal may be helpful. See also Return to work, where the evidence presented for “real” work is far stronger than the evidence for “simulated” work. Also see Exercise, where there is strong evidence for all types of exercise, especially progressive physical training including milestones of progress, but a lack of evidence to suggest that the exercise needs to be specific to the job. Physical conditioning programs that include a cognitive-behavioral approach plus intensive physical training (specific to the job or not) that includes aerobic capacity, muscle strength and endurance, and coordination; are in some way work-related; and are given and supervised by a physical therapy provider or a multidisciplinary team, seem to be effective in reducing the number of sick days for some workers with chronic back pain, when compared to usual care. However, there is no evidence of their efficacy for acute back pain. These programs should only be utilized for select patients with substantially lower capabilities than their job requires. (Schonstein-Cochrane, 2003) See also Chronic pain programs (functional restoration programs), where there is strong evidence for selective use of programs offering comprehensive interdisciplinary/ multidisciplinary treatment, beyond just work hardening. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation has been shown in controlled studies to improve pain and function in patients with chronic back pain. However, specialized back pain rehabilitation centers are rare and only a few patients can participate in this therapy. It is unclear how to select who will benefit, what combinations are effective in individual cases, and how long treatment is beneficial, and if used, treatment should not exceed 2 weeks without demonstrated efficacy (subjective and objective gains). (Lang, 2003) Work Conditioning should restore the client’s physical capacity and function. Work Hardening should be work simulation and not just therapeutic exercise, plus there should also be psychological support. Work Hardening is an interdisciplinary, individualized, job specific program of activity with the goal of return to work. Work Hardening programs use real or simulated work tasks and progressively graded conditioning exercises that are based on the individual’s measured tolerances. Work conditioning and work hardening are not intended for sequential use. They may be considered in the subacute stage when it appears that exercise therapy alone is not working and a biopsychosocial approach may be needed, but single discipline programs like work conditioning may be less likely to be effective than work hardening or interdisciplinary programs. (CARF, 2006) (Washington, 2006) The need for work hardening is less clear for workers in sedentary or light demand work, since on the job conditioning could be equally effective, and an examination should demonstrate a gap between the current level of functional capacity and an achievable level of required job demands. As with all intensive rehab programs, measurable functional improvement should occur after initial use of WH. It is not recommended that patients go from work conditioning to work hardening to chronic pain programs, repeating many of the same treatments without clear evidence of benefit. (Schonstein-Cochrane, 2008) Use of Functional Capacity Evaluations (FCEs) to evaluate return-to-work require validated tests. See the Fitness For Duty Chapter.

Other established guidelines: High quality prospective studies are lacking for Work Conditioning and Work Hardening, but there are consensus guidelines used by providers of these programs. The term “work hardening” was first introduced in the late 1970s (Matheson, 1985), with a description as a “work-oriented treatment program” with an outcome of improvement in productivity. An assessment is necessary, and activities include real or simulated work activities. (Lechner, 1994) The first guidelines for work hardening were introduced in 1986 by the American Occupational Therapy Association Commission on Practice. (AOTA, 1986) In 1988 the Commission for Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) addressed standards, suggesting that the programs must be “highly structured and goal oriented.” Services provided by a single practitioner were excluded from CARF accreditation for work hardening. (CARF, 1988) As CARF accreditation includes extensive administrative and organization standards, the Industrial Rehabilitation Advisory Committee of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) developed the Guidelines for Programs in Industrial Rehabilitation. (Helm-Williams, 1993) This was primarily to offer more flexibility. Types of programs in these guidelines are outlined below:

Single-Discipline Exercise Approaches: Approaches or programs that utilize exercise therapy, usually appropriate for patients with minimal psychological overlay, and typically called Work Conditioning (WC). Single-discipline approaches, like WC, may be considered in the subacute stage when it appears that physical rehabilitation alone is not working. For users of ODG, WC amounts to an additional series of intensive physical therapy (PT) visits required beyond a normal course of PT, primarily for exercise training/supervision. It is an intermediate level of nonoperative therapy between acute PT and interdisciplinary/ multidisciplinary programs, according to the number of visits outlined in the WC/PT guidelines, which appear below the ODG WH criteria.

Interdisciplinary Work-Related Exercise Approaches Adding Psychological Support: These approaches, called Work Hardening (WH) programs, feature exercise therapy combined with some elements of psychological support (education, cognitive behavioral therapy, fear avoidance, belief training, stress management, etc.) that deal with mild-to-moderate psychological overlay accompanying the subacute pain/disability, not severe enough to meet criteria for chronic pain management or functional restoration programs. (Hoffman, 2007) See also Chronic pain programs (functional restoration programs). There has been some suggestion that WH should be aimed at individuals who have been out of work for 2-3 months, or who have failed to transition back to full-duty after a more extended period of time, and that have evidence of more complex psychosocial problems in addition to physical and vocational barriers to successful return to work. Types of issues that are commonly addressed include anger at employer, fear of injury, fear of return to work, and interpersonal issues with co-workers or supervisors. The ODG WH criteria are outlined below.

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: (a) 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; (b) Review of systems including other non work-related medical conditions; (c) Documentation of musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, vocational, motivational, behavioral, and cognitive status by a physician, chiropractor, or physical and/or occupational therapist (and/or assistants); (d) Diagnostic interview with a mental health provider; (e) 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.
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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).
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Program documentation: The assessment and resultant treatment should be documented and be available to the employer, insurer, and other providers. There should 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Conferences:There should be evidence of routine staff conferencing regarding progress and plans for discharge. Daily treatment activity and response should be documented.
  17. 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.
  18. 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)
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.

Claimant relies on the medical records and testimony provided by an occupational therapist and a licensed counselor in support of his position that the evidence is contrary to the IRO’s determination. Specifically, the occupational therapist, who was also present on behalf of the healthcare provider, testified that she has been an occupational therapist for over 20 years, and specifically, works with First Responders. She testified that she is familiar with the ODG and understands the difference between work hardening and work conditioning; and further explained why she took issue with the reviewer’s analysis that work hardening was not necessary treatment and that work conditioning should have been recommended instead of the work hardening program. The reviewer noted that “The submitted records fail to establish that the patient presents with a significant psychosocial component which would require a multidisciplinary program.” The occupational therapist testified that the ODG does not require that there be a psychosocial component to qualify for work hardening. She stated that there is a requirement that any psychological components be “ruled out instead of ruling in.” She further testified that the work hardening program was requested in order to assist the Claimant at further conditioning and stamina for his job duties as a First Responder. She indicated that the work hardening program simulates the duties of a firefighter in different settings to assist the patient in familiarizing himself with the physical job demands in life-threatening situations. She went on to explain that although the Claimant can lift four times in quick succession, as reflected in the FCE; however, that this is not the same situation as the job duties necessary for a fireman. She explained that the FCE testing is in a single plane of lifting, but that is not the type of heavy lifting that would be required by a firefighter. She noted that the patient would be wearing and carrying up to 70 pounds of equipment and gear, along with having to use an air-tank for a short period of time. Furthermore, the firefighter would more likely than not would either have to carry or drag a person from a burning building, which would increase the weight the patient would be having to carry.

The therapist also explained that Claimant is working light-duty; however, the light-duty work does not provide Claimant the requisite stamina training that is necessary to perform his job duties as a full-time First Responder.

The counselor testified that there are no psychological barriers that would prevent the Claimant from successfully completing the work hardening program; although, there are behavioral and mental issues that Claimant would benefit from a multidisciplinary program.

The medical evidence presented in support of the necessity of the proposed procedure is sufficient and were persuasive. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence is contrary to the decision of the IRO that Claimant is not entitled to 70 hours of work hardening 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.


  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 the (Employer), Employer.
    3. On (Date of Injury), Employer provided workers’ compensation insurance as a Self-Insurer.
    4. On (Date of Injury), Claimant sustained a compensable injury.
  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 IRO determined that the requested service was not reasonable and necessary health care for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).
  4. Claimant did present evidence-based medical evidence contrary to the IRO decision.
  5. 70 hours of work hardening is 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.

The preponderance of the evidence is contrary to the decision of the IRO that 70 hours of work hardening is not health care reasonably required for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).DECISION

Claimant is entitled to 70 hours of work hardening for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).


Carrier is 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 30th day of March, 2016.

Teresa G. Hartley
Hearing Officer

End of Document