• Home • VEI Main Site • Econometrics • Search •

Medical Impairment Ratings

Challenge Issues Challenge Cases


Actual Earnings Use
Average Statistics
Basic Analysis Methodology
Broad Support
Census Bureau Caveat
Chronic Disability
Corcione Article
CPS Data Validity
CPS Definition of Work Disability
CPS Self-reported Disability
CPS Use by Other Researchers
Daubert/Kumho Standards - WLE
Employment, Earnings, & Disability
Expert Qualifications
First Work Disability Question
Hale Article
Hamel Letter
Heterogeneity
Medical Impairment Ratings
Multi-year Data Averaging
Offset Use
Possibility of Future Disability
Residual Capacity
Sample Selection Bias
Skoog & Toppino Article
Temporary Disability
VALE Software
Veteran's Disability

 

Usual Opposition Position
Some contend that the permanent impairment ratings percentage given by a medical doctor should be used without adjustment to calculate loss of earnings by simply removing that percentage from pre-injury earnings
 
VEI Position
Medical permanent impairment ratings deal only with the physical impact of injury to the body and the resulting functional limitations.  This is not the same as the vocational effect of the injury.  Medical impairment ratings cannot be translated directly into “vocational impairment ratings” or into loss of lifetime income.  The issues are different.

The Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition (AMA Press, 2001) defines impairment as “a loss, loss of use, or derangement of any body part, organ system, or organ function.”  (page 2)  It also distinguishes impairment from disability, which is defined in the publication as “An alteration of an individual’s capacity to meet personal, social, or occupational demands or statutory or regulatory requirements because of an impairment.”  (page 8)

Allowing the Guides to further speak for itself:  “Impairment ratings were designed to reflect functional limitations and not disability.  The whole person impairment percentages listed in the Guides estimate the impact of the impairment on the individual’s overall ability to perform activities of daily living, excluding work.”  (page 4; emphasis in original)

“The Guides is not intended to be used for direct estimates of work disability.  Impairment percentages derived according to the Guides criteria do not measure work disability.  Therefore, it is inappropriate to use the Guides’ criteria or ratings to make direct estimates of work disability.”  (page 9)

This is very clear.  When assessing the vocational loss due to injury, many factors other than the purely physical ones must be considered, such as the person’s age, education, gender, and work history.  The medical impairment rating has limited use.
 
Related Challenges
Engle v. Urethane Wright v. Werner  
 
Related Articles
     

Last modified: Thursday August 07, 2003 10:56 AM


Several links in this site are to documents that require the Acrobat ® Reader ® software.  Click logo for information on this free software
Questions or problems regarding this web site should be directed to VEI Webmaster.