Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
Title:
16026-nnr
Date:
June 15, 2016

16026-nnr

June 15, 2016

DECISION AND ORDER

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 Claimant is not entitled to the requested caudal epidural steroid injection to the lumbar spine for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A contested case hearing was held on June 8, 2016, to decide the following disputed issue:

  1. Is the preponderance of the evidence contrary to the decision of the IRO that a caudal epidural steroid injection to the lumbar spine is not health care reasonably required for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury)?
  2. PARTIES PRESENT

Petitioner/Claimant appeared and proceeded pro se. Respondent/Carrier appeared and was represented by JC, attorney.

EVIDENCE PRESENTED

The following witnesses testified:

For Claimant: D B

For Carrier: None

The following exhibits were admitted into evidence:

Hearing Officer’s Exhibits HO-1 and HO-2.

Claimant’s Exhibits CL-1 through CL-9.

Carrier’s Exhibits CR-A through CR-E.

DISCUSSION

Claimant sustained a compensable low back injury while employed by (Employer), Employer. He has been diagnosed with postlaminectomy syndrome of the lumbar region and, on or about December 12, 2015, Claimant’s doctor, AC, MD, requested preauthorization of a caudal epidural steroid injection (CESI) in Claimant’s lumbar spine. The request was reviewed by Coventry Workers’ Comp Services, Carrier’s utilization review agent (URA). Coventry assigned the utilization review to CR, MD, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Dr. CR recommended that the preauthorization of the CESI be denied because he found a lack of documentation of Claimant’s functional response to earlier CESIs, that the percentage of pain relief from the earlier CESIs was not documented, and because the latest documented examination findings were not suggestive of radiculopathy.

Claimant requested reconsideration of Dr. CR’s recommendation. The URA submitted the request to XR, MD, another utilization review doctor. Dr. XR also recommended that the procedure be non-certified due to a lack of documentation, specifically a lack of documentation of radiculopathy on examination. Claimant then availed himself of the Independent Review Organization (IRO) process under Rule 133.308. The Department appointed C-IRO Inc. as the IRO. C-IRO referred the request to one of its physician reviewers who is a Doctor of Osteopathy board certified in orthopedic surgery. The IRO physician reviewer based his determination on the Official Disability Guidelines (ODG), Claimant’s medical records (including office notes, lab reports, operative reports, MRIs of the lumbar spine, the utilization review reports, and a case management report), and his medical judgment, clinical experience and expertise. The IRO physician reviewer upheld Carrier’s denial of preauthorization, stating:

The Official Disability Guidelines require documentation of radiculopathy on physical examination corroborated by imaging studies and/or electrodiagnostic results. The patient’s physical examination fails to establish the presence of active radiculopathy with normal sensation, motor and deep tendon reflexes. There are no recent imaging studies/electrodiagnostic results submitted for review. As such, it is the opinion of the reviewer that the request for Caudal Epidural Steroid Injection Lumbar is not recommended as medically necessary and the prior denials are upheld.

Claimant has appealed the IRO decision in accordance with the Act and the Rules.

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 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 for the care of an individual patient. 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 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. The focus of any health care dispute starts with the health care set out in the ODG. 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. (Division Rule 133.308 (s).) In assessing evidence-based medical evidence, the Hearing Officer looks to expert medical testimony, either through written reports or live testimony, offered during the hearing. In determining the weight to be given to expert testimony, a trier of fact must first determine if the expert is qualified to offer it. The trier of fact must then determine whether the opinion is relevant to the issues at bar and whether it is based upon a solid foundation. An expert's bald assurance of validity is not enough. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995).

With regard to therapeutic epidural steroid injections, the ODG provides as follows:

Recommended as a possible option for short-term treatment of radicular pain (defined as pain in dermatomal distribution with corroborative findings of radiculopathy) with use in conjunction with active rehab efforts. Not recommended for spinal stenosis or for nonspecific low back pain. See specific criteria for use below. Radiculopathy symptoms are generally due to herniated nucleus pulposus or spinal stenosis, but ESIs have not been found to be as beneficial a treatment for the latter condition. According to SPORT, ESIs are associated with less improvement in spinal stenosis. (Radcliff, 2013)

Short-term symptoms: The American Academy of Neurology recently concluded that epidural steroid injections may lead to an improvement in radicular 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. (Armon, 2007) Epidural steroid injection can offer short-term pain relief and use should be in conjunction with other rehab efforts, including continuing a home exercise program. There is little information on improved function or return to work. There is no high-level evidence to support the use of epidural injections of steroids, local anesthetics, and/or opioids as a treatment for acute low back pain without radiculopathy. (Benzon, 1986) (ISIS, 1999) (DePalma, 2005) (Molloy, 2005) (Wilson-MacDonald, 2005)

Use for chronic pain: Chronic duration of symptoms (> 6 months) has also been found to decrease success rates with a threefold decrease found in patients with symptom duration > 24 months. The ideal time of either when to initiate treatment or when treatment is no longer thought to be effective has not been determined. (Hopwood, 1993) (Cyteval, 2006) Indications for repeating ESIs in patients with chronic pain at a level previously injected (> 24 months) include a symptom-free interval or indication of a new clinical presentation at the level.

For spinal stenosis: The use of epidural steroid injection (ESI) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis is common, but there is little evidence in the literature to demonstrate its long-term benefit. Despite equivalent baseline status, ESIs are associated with significantly less improvement at 4 years among all patients with spinal stenosis. Furthermore, ESIs were associated with longer duration of surgery and longer hospital stay. There was no improvement in outcome with ESI whether patients were treated surgically or nonsurgically. There was no distinct surgical avoidance noted with ESI. (Radcliff, 2013) This systematic review found the data was limited to suggest that ESI is effective in lumbar spinal stenosis. (Bresnahan, 2013) An RCT addressed the use of ESIs for treatment of spinal stenosis, and there was no statistical difference except in pain intensity and Roland Morris Disability Index and this was at two weeks only. (Koc, 2009) According to the APS/ ACP guidelines, ESIs are not for nonspecific low back pain or spinal stenosis. (Chou, 2008) According to a high quality RCT, in the treatment of symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis, epidural injections of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine offered minimal or no benefit over epidural injections of lidocaine alone at 6 weeks. At 3 weeks, the glucocorticoid-lidocaine group had greater improvement than the lidocaine-alone group, but the differences were clinically insignificant. Despite a rapid increase in the use of epidural glucocorticoid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis, there is little evidence of effectiveness from clinical trials. (Friedly, 2014)

Transforaminal approach: Some groups suggest that there may be a preference for a transforaminal approach as the technique allows for delivery of medication at the target tissue site, and an advantage for transforaminal injections in herniated nucleus pulposus over translaminar or caudal injections has been suggested in the best available studies. (Riew, 2000) (Vad, 2002) (Young, 2007) This approach may be particularly helpful in patients with large disc herniations, foraminal stenosis, and lateral disc herniations. (Colorado, 2001) (ICSI, 2004) (McLain, 2005) (Wilson-MacDonald, 2005) Two recent RCTs of caudal injections had different conclusions. This study concluded that caudal injections demonstrated 50% pain relief in 70% of the patients, but required an average of 3-4 procedures per year. (Manchikanti, 2011) This higher quality study concluded that caudal injections are not recommended for chronic lumbar radiculopathy. (Iversen, 2011) Transforaminal epidural steroid injections, despite being generally regarded as superior to interlaminar injections, are not significantly better in providing pain relief or functional improvement, according to a new systematic review. (Chien, 2014)

Fluoroscopic guidance: Fluoroscopic guidance with use of contrast is recommended for all approaches as needle misplacement may be a cause of treatment failure. (Manchikanti, 1999) (Colorado, 2001) (ICSI, 2004) (Molloy, 2005) (Young, 2007)

Factors that decrease success: Decreased success rates have been found in patients who are unemployed due to pain, who smoke, have had previous back surgery, have pain that is not decreased by medication, and/or evidence of substance abuse, disability or litigation. (Jamison, 1991) (Abram, 1999) Research reporting effectiveness of ESIs in the past has been contradictory, but these discrepancies are felt to have been, in part, secondary to numerous methodological flaws in the early studies, including the lack of imaging and contrast administration. Success rates also may depend on the technical skill of the interventionalist. (Carette, 1997) (Bigos, 1999) (Rozenberg, 1999) (Botwin, 2002) (Manchikanti, 2003) (CMS, 2004) (Delport, 2004) (Khot, 2004) (Buttermann, 2004) (Buttermann2, 2004) (Samanta, 2004) (Cigna, 2004) (Benzon, 2005) (Dashfield, 2005) (Arden, 2005) (Price, 2005) (Resnick, 2005) (Abdi, 2007) (Boswell, 2007) (Buenaventura, 2009) Also see Epidural steroid injections, “series of three” and Epidural steroid injections, diagnostic. ESIs may be helpful with radicular symptoms not responsive to 2 to 6 weeks of conservative therapy. (Kinkade, 2007) Epidural steroid injections are an option for short-term pain relief of persistent radiculopathy, although not for nonspecific low back pain or spinal stenosis. (Chou, 2008) As noted above, injections are recommended if they can facilitate a return to functionality (via activity & exercise). If post-injection physical therapy visits are required for instruction in these active self-performed exercise programs, these visits should be included within the overall recommendations under Physical therapy, or at least not require more than 2 additional visits to reinforce the home exercise program.

With discectomy: Epidural steroid administration during lumbar discectomy may reduce early neurologic impairment, pain, and convalescence and enhance recovery without increasing risks of complications. (Rasmussen, 2008) Not recommended post-op. The evidence for ESI for post lumbar surgery syndrome is poor. (Manchikanti, 2012)

Patient selection: Radiculopathy must be documented, as indicated in the ODG criteria. In addition, ESIs are more often successful in patients without significant compression of the nerve root and, therefore, in whom an inflammatory basis for radicular pain is most likely. In such patients, a success rate of 75% renders ESI an attractive temporary alternative to surgery, but in patients with significant compression of the nerve root, the likelihood of benefiting from ESI is low (26%). This success rate may be no more than that of a placebo effect, and surgery may be a more appropriate consideration. (Ghahreman, 2011) Injections for spinal pain have high failure rates, emphasizing the importance of patient selection. Individuals with centralized pain, such as those with fibromyalgia and chronic widespread pain, and poorly controlled depression, may be poor candidates. (Brummett, 2013)

MRIs: According to this RCT, the use of MRI before ESIs does not improve patient outcomes and has a minimal effect on decision making, but the use of MRI might have reduced the total number of injections required and may have improved outcomes in a subset of patients. Given these potential benefits as well as concerns related to missing important rare contraindications to epidural steroid injection, plus the small benefits of ESIs themselves, ODG continues to recommend that radiculopathy be corroborated by imaging studies and/or electrodiagnostic testing. (Cohen, 2012)

Fracture risk: Lumbar ESIs are associated with an increased risk for spinal fracture. Each single additional ESI increased the risk for fracture by 21%, with an increasing number of ESIs associated with an increasing likelihood of fracture. Use of ESIs seems to promote deterioration of skeletal quality. This definable fracture risk should be balanced with the best available evidence regarding the long-term efficacy of ESIs, which is limited. Clinicians should consider these findings before prescribing ESIs for elderly patients. (Mandel, 2013)

Recent research: An updated Cochrane review of injection therapies (ESIs, facets, trigger points) for low back pain concluded that there is no strong evidence for or against the use of any type of injection therapy, but it cannot be ruled out that specific subgroups of patients may respond to a specific type of injection therapy. (Staal-Cochrane, 2009) Recent studies document a 629% increase in expenditures for ESIs, without demonstrated improvements in patient outcomes or disability rates. (Deyo, 2009) There is fair evidence that epidural steroid injection is moderately effective for short-term (but not long-term) symptom relief. (Chou3, 2009) This RCT concluded that caudal epidural injections containing steroids demonstrated better and faster efficacy than placebo. (Sayegh, 2009) In this RCT there were no statistically significant differences between any of the three groups at any time points. This study had some limitations: only one type of steroid in one dose was tested; the approach used was caudal and transforaminal injections might provide superior results. (Weiner, 2012) Effects are short-term and minimal. At follow-up of up to 3 months, epidural steroids were associated with statistically significant reductions in mean leg pain and mean disability score, but neither of these short-term improvements reached the threshold for clinical significance. There were no significant differences in either leg pain or disability at 12 months follow-up. (Pinto, 2012) According to this systematic review, ESIs without the drug (epidural nonsteroid injections), often used as a placebo treatment, were as effective as ESIs and better than no epidural injections. (Bicket, 2013) This meta-analysis suggested that ESI did not improve back-specific disability more than a placebo or other procedure long-term (6 months), and did not significantly decrease the number of patients who underwent subsequent surgery. (Choi, 2013) The FDA is warning that injection of corticosteroids into the epidural space of the spine may result in rare but serious adverse events, including loss of vision, stroke, paralysis, and death. (FDA, 2014) This study shows that ESIs had a significant beneficial effect as an additional treatment for lumbosacral radicular syndrome in general practice, but the effect was too small to be considered clinically relevant to patients, so the authors do not recommend ESIs as a regular intervention in general practice. (Spijker-Huiges, 2014) A high quality RCT concluded that gabapentin and ESIs for radicular pain both resulted in modest improvements in pain and function, which persisted through three months. Some differences favored ESIs, but these tended to be small and transient. They recommended a trial with neuropathic drugs as a reasonable first line treatment option. (Cohen, 2015) The AHRQ comparative effectiveness study on injection therapies for LBP concluded that ESIs for radiculopathy were associated with immediate improvements in pain and might be associated with immediate improvements in function, but benefits were small and not sustained, and there was no effect on long-term risk of surgery. Evidence did not suggest that effectiveness varies based on injection technique, corticosteroid, dose, or comparator. Limited evidence suggested that epidural corticosteroid injections are not effective for spinal stenosis or nonradicular back pain. (Chou, 2015) In another systematic review, evidence was only robust for positive effects in patients with chronic radiculopathy, with statistically significant effects on immediate (5 days to ≤2 weeks) improvement in pain, and short-term (>2 weeks to ≤3 months) surgery risk. (Chou, 2015b) See the Neck Chapter, where ESIs are not recommended based on recent evidence, given the serious risks of this procedure in the cervical region, and the lack of quality evidence for sustained benefit.

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, muscle relaxants & neuropathic drugs).

(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.)

Claimant’s request for epidural steroid injections are predicated upon their use as treatment for his herniated lumbar disc. The ODG provides that objective findings of radiculopathy on examination need to be present and the radiculopathy must be corroborated by imaging studies and/or electrodiagnostic testing. The IRO physician reviewer noted that such objective findings of radiculopathy, corroborated by imaging studies or electrodiagnostic testing were not present. A review of the medical records offered by Claimant into evidence validates the IRO physician reviewer’s statements. Throughout Dr. Calodney’s chart notes, there are references to Claimant’s reduced need for pain medication, and his increased ability to function, work as a part-time meter reader and play with his grandchildren. But there is a dearth of objective evidence of radiculopathy and no mention of contemporaneous imaging or electrodiagnostic studies. The IRO physician reviewer’s recommendation is consistent with the provisions of the ODG and the preponderance of the other evidence-based medical evidence is not contrary to the IRO decision in this matter.

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.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. The parties stipulated as follows:

A.Venue is proper in the (City) Field Office of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation.

B.On (Date of Injury), Claimant was the employee of (Employer), Employer.

C.On (Date of Injury), Employer provided workers’ compensation insurance through (Carrier), Carrier.

D.Claimant sustained a compensable injury on (Date of Injury).

E.Carrier denied Claimant’s request for preauthorization of a caudal epidural steroid injection to the lumbar spine.

F.C-IRO Inc. was appointed as the independent review organization to review Carrier’s denial of preauthorization.

G.C-IRO upheld Carrier’s denial of the preauthorization of a caudal epidural steroid injection to the lumbar spine.

  • 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.
  • 3The preponderance of the evidence-based medical evidence is not contrary to the IRO physician reviewer’s determination that there was a lack of objective evidence of lumbar radiculopathy supported by imaging studies or electrodiagnostic studies at the time of the IRO review.

    4The medical evidence presented did not document continued, objective, documented pain relief after prior epidural steroid injections.

    5The medical evidence presented did not establish that Claimant is an outlier and that the recommendations found in the ODG for treatment should not apply.

    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. As of the date of the IRO review, a caudal epidural steroid injection to the lumbar spine was not reasonably required health care for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).

    DECISION

    Claimant is not entitled to the requested caudal epidural steroid injection to the lumbar spine 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 Section 408.021.

    The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (Carrier) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is

    CT CORPORATION SYSTEM

    1999 BRYAN STREET, SUITE 900

    DALLAS, TX 75201-3136

    Signed this 15th day of June, 2016.

    KENNETH A. HUCHTON
    Hearing Officer

    End of Document
    Top