Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
Title:
16030-nnr
Date:
June 27, 2016

16030-nnr

June 27, 2016

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. For the reasons discussed herein, the Hearing Officer determines Claimant is entitled to a left knee arthroscopy and partial medial meniscectomy for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On June 21, 2016, a medical contested case hearing was held to decide the following disputed issues:

  1. Is the preponderance of the evidence contrary to the decision of the IRO that Claimant is not entitled to a left knee arthroscopy and partial medial meniscectomy for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury)?

PARTIES PRESENT

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

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

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

On (Date of Injury), Claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident when his Ford Explorer rolled over three times. When taken by ambulance to the hospital, he complained of left knee pain. On June 08, 2015, Claimant underwent a left knee surgery at the direction of DF, D.O. This involved a partial medial and lateral meniscectomy and chondroplasty of the medial femoral condyle. Claimant testified that during post-surgical physical therapy, his left knee began to hurt again. Physical therapy was eventually stopped. Claimant also testified that one time after physical therapy he went home and his foot caught in the carpet and his knee twisted, causing his knee to hurt worse. (The parties stated there were no extent of injury issues.) Claimant eventually returned to his surgeon, who opined he needed another surgery, which is the procedure being disputed in this hearing. Claimant’s surgeon requested a left knee arthroscopy and partial medial meniscectomy. This was denied by both pre-authorization reviews. The IRO board-certified orthopedic surgeon agreed with the denials. Claimant is disputing the IRO decision.

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."

On the date of this medical contested case hearing, the Official Disability Guidelines provides the following with regard to a left knee arthroscopy and partial medial meniscectomy:

Recommended as indicated below for symptomatic meniscal tears for younger patients and for traumatic tears. Not recommended for osteoarthritis (OA) in the absence of meniscal findings, or in older patients with degenerative tears until after a trial of PT/exercise. (Kirkley, 2008) (Khan, 2014) Meniscectomy is a surgical procedure associated with a high risk of knee osteoarthritis (OA). One study concludes that the long-term outcome of meniscal injury and surgery appears to be determined largely by the type of meniscal tear, and that a partial meniscectomy may have better long-term results than a subtotal meniscectomy for a degenerative tear. (Englund, 2001) Another study concludes that partial meniscectomy may allow a slightly enhanced recovery rate as well as a potentially improved overall functional outcome including better knee stability in the long term compared with total meniscectomy. (Howell-Cochrane, 2002) The following characteristics were associated with a surgeon's judgment that a patient would likely benefit from knee surgery: a history of sports-related trauma, low functional status, limited knee flexion or extension, medial or lateral knee joint line tenderness, a click or pain noted with the McMurray test, and a positive Lachmann or anterior drawer test. (Solomon, 2004) Our conclusion is that operative treatment with complete repair of all torn structures produces the best overall knee function with better knee stability and patient satisfaction. In patients younger than 35, arthroscopic meniscal repair can preserve meniscal function, although the recovery time is longer compared to partial meniscectomy. Arthroscopy and meniscus surgery will not be as beneficial for older patients who are exhibiting signs of degenerative changes, possibly indicating osteoarthritis, and meniscectomy will not improve the OA. Meniscal repair is much more complicated than meniscal excision (meniscectomy). Some surgeons state in an operative report that they performed a meniscal repair when they may really mean a meniscectomy. A meniscus repair is a surgical procedure done to repair the damaged meniscus. This procedure can restore the normal anatomy of the knee, and has a better long-term prognosis when successful. However, the meniscus repair is a more significant surgery, the recovery is longer, and, because of limited blood supply to the meniscus, it is not always possible. A meniscectomy is a procedure to remove the torn portion of the meniscus. This procedure is far more commonly performed than a meniscus repair. Most meniscus tears cannot be treated by a repair. See also Meniscal allograft transplantation. (Harner, 2004) (Graf, 2004) (Wong, 2004) (Solomon-JAMA, 2001) (Chatain, 2003) (Chatain-Robinson, 2001) (Englund, 2004) (Englund, 2003) (Menetrey, 2002) (Pearse, 2003) (Roos, 2000) (Roos, 2001) Arthroscopic debridement of meniscus tears and knees with low-grade osteoarthritis may have some utility, but it should not be used as a routine treatment for all patients with knee osteoarthritis. (Siparsky, 2007) Asymptomatic meniscal tears are common in older adults, based on studying MRI scans of the right knee of 991 randomly selected, ambulatory subjects. Incidental meniscal findings on MRI of the knee are common in the general population and increase with increasing age. Identifying a tear in a person with knee pain does not mean that the tear is the cause of the pain. (Englund, 2008) Arthroscopic meniscal repair results in good clinical and anatomic outcomes. (Pujol, 2008) Whether or not meniscal surgery is performed, meniscal tears in the knee increase the risk of developing osteoarthritis in middle age and elderly patients, and individuals with meniscal tear were 5.7 times more likely to develop knee osteoarthritis. (Englund, 2009) AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Research concluded that arthroscopic lavage for osteoarthritis, with or without debridement, does not improve pain and function for people with OA of the knee. (AHRQ, 2011) The repair of meniscal tears is significantly improved when performed in conjunction with ACL reconstruction. (Wasserstein, 2011) In patients with a nontraumatic degenerative medial meniscal tear and no knee osteoarthritis, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is no better than sham surgery according to a high quality RCT. While arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is the most common orthopedic procedure performed in the U.S., rigorous evidence of its efficacy is lacking. While the results may argue against the current practice of performing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in patients with a degenerative meniscal tear, the study did not compare meniscectomy with no treatment, because in the sham surgery group, they inserted an arthroscope and put fluid through the knee. (Sihvonen, 2013)

Physical therapy vs. surgery: In older patients with degenerative tears and symptoms caused by osteoarthritis, PT/exercise may be an appropriate first option and it may be possible to reserve surgery for those who do not benefit from PT alone. A high quality RCT, the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (METEOR) trial, found similar outcomes from PT versus surgery for meniscal tears in older individuals. Researchers at seven major universities and orthopedic surgery centers around the U.S. assigned 351 people with arthritis and meniscus tears to get either surgery or physical therapy, nine sessions on average plus exercises to do at home. After six months, both groups had similar rates of functional improvement, and pain scores were also similar. While 30% of patients assigned to physical therapy wound up having surgery before the six months was up, often because they felt therapy wasn’t helping them, they ended up the same as those who got surgery right away, as well as the rest of the physical therapy group who stuck with it and avoided having an operation. These results suggest that physical therapy may be an appropriate first option for many patients with osteoarthritis and meniscal tears and that it may be possible to reserve surgery for those who do not benefit from physical therapy alone. (Katz, 2013) Another RCT comparing meniscectomy to strengthening exercises in patients presenting with degenerative medial meniscus tear and no clear evidence of osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 0-1) found no significant between-group differences in function, pain, or patient satisfaction scores. (Yim, 2013) Arthroscopic surgery for knee osteoarthritis offers no added benefit to optimized physical and medical therapy, according to the results of a single-center, RCT reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study, combined with other evidence, indicates that osteoarthritis of the knee (in the absence of a history and physical examination suggesting meniscal or other findings) is not an indication for arthroscopic surgery and indeed has been associated with inferior outcomes after arthroscopic knee surgery. However, osteoarthritis is not a contraindication to arthroscopic surgery, and arthroscopic surgery remains appropriate in patients with arthritis in specific situations in which osteoarthritis is not believed to be the primary cause of pain. (Kirkley, 2008) In this RCT, arthroscopic partial medial meniscectomy followed by supervised exercise was not superior to supervised exercise alone in terms of reduced knee pain, improved knee function and improved quality of life, after non-traumatic degenerative medial meniscal tear in ninety patients, mean age 56 years. (Herrlin, 2007) (Marcus, 2002) (Moseley, 2002) See also arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis; Loose body removal surgery (arthroscopy).

Risk versus benefit: The advantage of most surgeries to treat meniscus tears appears to be limited to short term relief of pain and mechanical catching, but not prevention of eventual osteoarthritis. Due to loss of mechanical cushioning following acute traumatic tears with or without additional removal of meniscal tissues (partial meniscectomy), OA progression simply becomes in evitable. Primary surgical repair of meniscus tears when feasible offers the best hope of joint preservation, but is associated with the risks of slower recovery and a relatively high re-tear rate often requiring additional surgery. The benefit of surgery for atraumatic tears or in the presence of significant OA drops off dramatically and may even be harmful, further accelerating AO progression. The ideal patients for meniscus surgery are younger, with smaller or repairable traumatic tears associated with mechanical symptoms, and no associated OA. Due to the unsolved issue of OA progression despite surgery, many indications for surgery in the past are now being questioned.

ODG Indications for Surgery -- Meniscectomy:

Criteria for meniscectomy or meniscus repair (Suggest 2 symptoms and 2 signs to avoid scopes with lower yield, e.g. pain without other symptoms, posterior joint line tenderness that could just signify arthritis, MRI with degenerative tear that is often false positive). Physiologically younger and more active patients with traumatic injuries and mechanical symptoms (locking, blocking, catching, etc.) should undergo arthroscopy without PT.

  1. Conservative Care: (Not required for locked/blocked knee.) Exercise/Physical therapy (supervised PT and/or home rehab exercises, if compliance is adequate). AND Medication OR Activity modification [e.g., crutches and/or immobilizer]. PLUS
  2. Subjective Clinical Findings (at least two): Joint pain. OR Swelling. OR Feeling of give way. OR Locking, clicking, or popping. PLUS
  3. Objective Clinical Findings (at least two): Positive McMurray's sign. OR Joint line tenderness. OR Effusion. OR Limited range of motion. OR Locking, clicking, or popping. OR Crepitus. PLUS
  4. Imaging Clinical Findings:(Not required for locked/blocked knee.) Meniscal tear on MRI (order MRI only after above criteria are met). (Washington, 2003)

The IRO doctor wrote that Claimant has evidence of significant arthrosis and applicable guidelines do not support the requested surgery in the presence of overwhelming existing arthritis. However, the ODG does not say that.

The ODG gives the following recommendation, “Not recommended for osteoarthritis (OA) in the absence of meniscal findings, or in older patients with degenerative tears until after a trial of PT/exercise.” Neither of those apply in this case. While there is OA, there is also a finding of an acute meniscal tear, per Dr. Foster. This statement does not say that meniscectomies are not recommended when OA is present. While “older patients” is not defined (although one of the studies separated patients 35 years or younger), this is not a degenerative, as already noted. Another statement above notes arthroscopy is not recommended to repair OA. This is not what Dr. Foster is proposing or treating. He is performing a partial meniscectomy. There is nothing in the requested procedure addressing OA.

Most specifically, the ODG notes, “However, osteoarthritis is not a contraindication to arthroscopic surgery, and arthroscopic surgery remains appropriate in patients with arthritis in specific situations in which osteoarthritis is not believed to be the primary cause of pain. (Kirkley, 2008).” Based upon Dr. Foster’s comments, that is the situation in this case.

Dr. F’s report indicates Claimant has met each of the four criteria for surgery listed above. Dr. F’s report supports the medical necessity of a left knee arthroscopy and partial medial meniscectomy and he relied on his physical examinations of Claimant, the diagnostic testing, and the ODG to support his opinion. Claimant has shown by a preponderance of evidence-based medical evidence that the requested left knee arthroscopy and partial medial meniscectomy is health care reasonably required for the compensable 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. On (Date of Injury), Claimant sustained a compensable injury.
    4. The Independent Review Organization board-certified orthopedic surgeon determined Claimant should not have a left knee arthroscopy and partial medial meniscectomy.
  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. A left knee arthroscopy and partial medial meniscectomy is 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 contrary to the decision of the IRO that a left knee arthroscopy and partial medial meniscectomy is not health care reasonably required for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).

DECISION

Claimant is entitled to a left knee arthroscopy and partial medial meniscectomy for the compensable injury of (Date of Injury).

ORDER

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

CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY

211 EAST 7TH STREET, SUITE 620

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701.

Signed this 27th day of June, 2016.

KEN WROBEL

Hearing Officer

End of Document
Top