Tara Reck, Managing L&I Attorney at Reck Law PLLC - Workers' Compensation Attorneys

Category: Medical Providers (Page 4 of 18)

L&I Claims and Causal Relationship Challenges: Diagnoses That Come “Later”

If you have a work injury or work-related illness in Washington State, then you can file an L&I claim. Your L&I claim should cover all conditions that arise from the work injury or disease. We refer to these conditions as “causally related”. However, in some cases, it can be challenging to determine which conditions are causally related. Especially with L&I came late diagnosis where conditions come up later in the claim.

 

Work injury medical condition: Causation and aggravation

Under the law, a condition relates to the workplace injury if: (1) The work injury caused or aggravated the condition; or (2) The cause or aggravation was a result of medical treatment for the workplace injury. Clearly, when a diagnosis comes late, it can be difficult to establish the causal connection.

 

There are many cases where conditions arise in later stages of a workers’ compensation claim. Often, these conditions come up late due to valid and logical reasons. Common reasons include overlooking a diagnosis, or failure to obtain necessary diagnostic studies early. Another reason can be a minor injury at first, which progresses into a severe one later. Moreover, there are other reasons such as new medical conditions that develop during (or as a result of) treatment. Either way, it’s important to ensure that the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) covers these conditions. Therefore, it’s imperative to show causal relation to the workplace injury under your L&I claim.

 

Missing diagnosis in a workplace injury

It’s very common for initial work injury or workplace disease diagnoses to be simple soft tissue issues. For example, sprains or strains. These diagnoses should heal quickly within weeks or months. However, when symptoms persist, it may be necessary to take a second look. For whatever reason, more significant diagnoses may not surface up for months or even years. When doctors make the “new” diagnosis so much later, it can raise serious questions about causation. Moreover, it can be particularly challenging if treatment wasn’t consistent, or if it continued over time. This is one reason I always stress the importance of having an attentive attending provider on your L&I claim. In my experience, if your L&I claim medical provider is attentive, then you have lower likelihood for missing diagnoses.

 

Failure to obtain necessary diagnostic studies

Another common reason for “new” diagnosis that comes in late is when doctors do not request diagnostic studies early. Many work injury claimants I represent experience the frustration of authorization denials for diagnostic studies. For example, when requesting an MRI. In the most egregious cases, I’ve seen IMEs opine there is no diagnosis because there are no “objective” findings for it. However, there are no objective findings because the attending provider’s request for an MRI is denied. Sometimes, it requires litigation to finally get the MRI. Then, when we finally get the MRI, it objectively documents a more severe diagnosis. Here, these may include disc herniation, muscle, tendon or ligament tear. In some cases, it can reveal a fracture or nerve impingement.

 

Progression of the initial work injury

Occasionally, a diagnosis may not occur until later in your L&I claim because it doesn’t progress until later. For instance, a person may experience a muscle, tendon, or ligament strain as a result of a specific injury at work or work activity. Over time, the damage may progress and become worse. For example, a shoulder stain may become a partial or full thickness tear. The same goes for knee strains that can become meniscus tears. Alternatively, back injuries that turn into full disc herniation. Here, the question we ask if whether a more severe condition developed out of the original work injury? If the answer is “no”, then the more severe injury is not causally related.

 

New injury during treatment

In Washington State, under the law, injuries that occur during treatment also fall under your workers’ compensation claim. Unfortunately, these kinds of injuries are more common than you’d expect. No one ever intends for them to happen. However, additional injuries can occur during massage therapy or physical therapy. Furthermore, they can even happen as a side effect of an authorized treatment such as surgery.

 

In my experience, the most critical thing is to ensure there’s a medical report. The report should document the injury – when and how it happened. Workers’ compensation is not about fault. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how the new injury occurred. However, we still need to establish causation. Hence, it’s important to document the fact that the injury happened during treatment.

 

L&I Claim Late Diagnosis: Final remarks and conclusion

Causal relationship of medical conditions is always an important issue in a workers’ compensation claim. Often, challenges can arise, especially when diagnoses come later. That’s often the case with L&I claim late diagnosis. Yet, regardless of the reason for the late diagnosis, it’s important to establish the connection. Explicitly, the chain of connections between the “new” diagnosis and the original workplace injury or occupational disease.

 

L&I Claim Treatment Authorization for Low Back Conditions (and More)

The Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) recently collaborated with the Industrial Insurance Medical Advisory Committee and the Lumbar Surgery Subcommittee. Together, they developed a new guideline for low back surgery. Consequently, medical providers that treat work injury claimants for low back conditions need to follow new rules starting October 3, 2021. The purpose of this article is to cover L&I treatment authorization topics for L&I claims involving back conditions.

 

L&I claim back injury treatment authorization

Under the guideline, the following procedures will not be authorized under any circumstances:

 

However, if a work injury claimant meets certain criteria, the following procedures may be covered:

 

Avoiding treatment denial in your L&I claim

Many work injury victims are treated for back injury under their workers’ compensation claim in Washington State. Under your L&I claim, you can check whether your claim administrator should authorize certain treatments. In fact, you can check the guideline and associated criteria on the L&I website. You must make sure that you meet the relevant criteria. If not, Comagine will automatically recommend to deny your treatment.

 

Sometimes, there are circumstances when providers feel that treatment is appropriate. This is true even if you don’t satisfy the authorization criteria. If that’s your case, then you have several options. First, the recommending provider can have a peer-to-peer review with Comagine. After that, the review might result in treatment authorization. Alternatively, you can appeal treatment denial to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (BIIA).

 

Appealing L&I claim treatment denial

The BIIA follows legal standards when it reviews treatment authorization appeals. Under the law, treatment should be authorized if it’s proper and necessary. The term “proper and necessary” includes services to diagnose and treat any condition caused by an injury or occupational disease. Furthermore, treatments can also be curative or rehabilitative. Here, curative refers to treatment that produces permanent changes. For example, to eliminate or lessen the clinical effects of a condition. On the other hand, rehabilitative means treatment that helps regain functional activity on a long-term basis.

 

When appealing treatment authorization, BIIA follows legal definitions to determine if treatment is necessary and proper. Therefore, L&I treatment guidelines have little relevance to the BIIA analysis. Still, it’s unlikely that the BIIA will find new or experimental treatments necessary and proper in the workers’ compensation setting.

 

How Does L&I Occupational Therapy Work in My Claim?

The Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) has been working on a new Work Rehabilitation Guideline. The overarching purpose of the guideline is to address physical therapy and occupational therapy in L&I claims.

 

L&I claim work rehabilitation and utilization review

L&I collaborated with professionals from multiple relevant disciplines to develop the guideline. In fact, they worked with physical therapists, occupational therapists, and vocational counselors. In addition, they collaborated with representatives of the Office of the Medical Director at L&I. The 58-pages guideline draft is currently available on the L&I website.

The goal for the new guideline is to instruct providers and shape the policy for work rehabilitation. Importantly, it’s also intended to improve the L&I claim utilization review process. Personally, I think this new guideline extends L&I’s approach towards more uniform practices across all L&I claim medical providers. Furthermore, it seems to focus on early intervention and return to work (RTW).

 

Work rehabilitation in L&I occupational therapy

If you have an L&I claim or workers’ compensation claim in Washington State, you might be eligible for work rehabilitation. In general, for eligibility, a work injury claimant must meet the following criteria:

1) The L&I claim attending provider must opine that the work injury claimant is ready to participate in the program.

2) The injured worker must have had at least 2 months of recovery since the injury.

3) The person with the work injury must demonstrate good likelihood of succeeding in the program. Claim managers consider multiple factors when assessing the worker’s likelihood of success. Overall, these factors include vocational issues, behavioral health needs, and support network.

4) The claim administrator must clearly identify a return-to-work goal. Also, the goal has to include an applicable job analysis. Alternatively, it can include a description of job demands.

5) The program intensity has to match the work injury claimant’s individual needs. It must also consider the job demands and the availability of modifications-to-the-job within the labor market.

 

The new L&I occupational therapy guidelines

From my perspective, this new guideline seems to offer some good improvements. For example, I’m happy to see that L&I is focusing on the specific needs of each injured worker and their return-to-work goal. Previously, similar programs seem to follow a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Now, I genuinely believe that work injury claimants will perform much better because the program addresses their individual needs.

However, I’m concerned that this guideline falls short of meeting the intent and purpose of the Industrial Insurance Act. Specifically when it comes to this part:

“to protect injured workers, to provide them with sure and certain relief for their injuries, and to reduce to a minimum their suffering and economic harm.”

With this in mind, I feel strong disheartening when I read the definition of “work disability” in the draft guideline:

“Work Disability is a concept describing the overall societal context of why workers may have continued disability. This model includes the personal aspects (like physical injury and coping strategies of the worker) and places them within a framework of the larger healthcare, legislative and workplace systems; all of which have impact on the benefits, incentives and decision-making for RTW options. Ultimately, these factors influence the worker to make a decision on when, or if, they RTW. Addressing these factors is part of a worker’s recovery and when particular barriers to recovery are identified, efforts can be made to address and work toward satisfactory solutions. This requires proper messaging from all providers about the nature of work disability and methods to foster patient engagement.”

 

Concerns and opinion

First, this definition isn’t consistent with the legal definition of total disability. Beyond that, it demonstrates one of the biggest challenges work injury claimants face during L&I claims. Explicitly, having their pain complaints taken seriously. Sure, pain is a subjective complaint. Workers’ compensation laws require at least one objective finding to support the extent of a work injury claimant’s physical disability. However, treatment providers are not required to rely solely on objective findings.

Guidelines like this should do a better job in helping treatment providers understand how to appropriately acknowledge and validate work injury claimant pain complaints. Being in pain doesn’t mean that a person doesn’t want to get back to work. It also doesn’t mean they think of themselves as disabled. Moreover, in my experience, if you treat people after an injury at work as if their pain is driven by disability conviction, return to work avoidance, or secondary gain – that’s the best way to destroy the provider-patient relationship. Consequently, there’s a very good chance that their treatment will fail.

 

« Older posts Newer posts »