By Hon. Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Staff’ Compensation Appeals Board
A. From Work Restrictions to Impression of Harm on ADLs
A seismic shift occurred in 2014 when the California legislature proposed a brand new methodology for ranking everlasting incapacity of business accidents. Beforehand, beneath the 1997 PDRS, impairments have been rated based mostly on work restrictions. Throughout the state, a consensus amongst stakeholders was quickly rising, claiming this method led to main inconsistencies within the stage of incapacity that was assigned to any given injured employee. This prompted the legislature to take a deep dive into exploring alternate strategies for measurement of business impairments. The aim was to discover a extra equitable system that might result in constant outcomes upon which each injured staff and people chargeable for fee of advantages might rely.
Ultimately, it was determined that the American Medical Affiliation (AMA) had the best reference instrument for measuring impairments and in the end everlasting incapacity. The reference instrument the AMA had developed was referred to as the Guides to the Analysis of Everlasting Impairment, extra generally often called the AMA Guides. It had already been efficiently utilized by the Federal Social Safety system and seemed to be a wonderful match for California’s Staff’ Compensation System.
B. Urgency Laws Urges Use of AMA Guides
On Monday, April 19, 2004, SB 899 was enacted into regulation as a part of an urgency laws bundle to overtake the California Staff’ Compensation System. Included in that bundle of recent Labor Code sections was a declaration that sure metrics of the AMA Guides Fifth Version shall be integrated into a brand new 2005 PDRS for measuring work-related impairments. Over 20 years later, that system remains to be in place, and practitioners are nonetheless a bit confused as to the way it all works.
The one factor we do know, after studying Chapters One and Two of the AMA Guides, is that this measurement system is meant to calculate the extent of impairment based mostly on the affect of the commercial harm on the applicant’s actions of every day residing. (See web page 4, Desk 1–2 of the AMA Guides for a listing of “actions of every day residing” or ADLs.) That is just about the entire system in a nutshell.
C. What Are “Add-ons” and The place Do They Come From?
Nevertheless, there are some quirky bits to that general reform course of. A serious one is one thing we discuss with as “add-ons.” If an evaluating doctor paperwork, with cheap medical likelihood, that an extra stage of WPI, often between 1 and three%, needs to be added to an individual’s general WPI ranking, that quantity could also be thought of by the employees’ compensation decide when figuring out a last everlasting incapacity ranking. After a dozen or extra thorough reads of those AMA Guides, lined to cowl, I’ve uncovered 5 of them:
- 1-3% add on for ache (2005 PDRS @ p. 1–12)
- 1-3% add on for “results of remedy” (p. 600 of AMA Guides)
- 1-4% WPI for “full lack of style” (p. 332 of AMA Guides – Desk 13–12)
- 1-3% Stand-alone ranking for headache ache (See Herb v. County of Los Angeles, 2023 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 114 (Appeals Board noteworthy panel resolution))
- “Complexity of Medical Remedy” (See Gault Americana Trip Golf equipment, Inc., Republic, 2018 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 476 (Appeals Board noteworthy panel resolution). This one is a little bit of a stretch.)
D. Why Is the Ache “Add-on” Capped at 3%?
How did these tagalongs come about? I am not fairly certain, however use of those add-ons is permissible, so long as they’re sanctioned by the language within the 2005 PDRS.
As an example, the AMA Guides embody a complete chapter, Chapter 18, protecting the topic of “Ache.” Nevertheless, the opposite metrics in different chapters of the guides already incorporate a stage of ache of their respective rankings. Subsequently, it will be duplicative to make use of the metrics and tables in Chapter 18 to permit for an extra stand-alone ranking for ache. Pursuant to the directive of the legislature, use of Chapter 18 is proscribed to the steerage supplied within the 2005 PDRS on web page 1–12 as follows:
3. Score impairment based mostly on ache
Pursuant to chapter 18 of the AMA guides, a complete particular person impairment ranking based mostly on the physique or organ ranking system of the AMA guides (Chapters 3 by 17) perhaps elevated by as much as 3% WPI if the burden of the employee’s situation has been elevated by pain-related impairment in extra of the ache element already integrated within the WPI ranking in Chapters 3–17. (AMA Guides p. 573.)
Extra directions make clear how and when to make use of the 1-3% add-on, with a cap to not exceed 3% WPI per harm, whatever the variety of physique components impaired. See the part, “About Score Ache” from the DWC regularly requested questions part for practitioners: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/faq/DEU_FAQ.html#6 as follows:
Q: As a major treating doctor, how do I consider subjective impairment beneath the brand new schedule? For instance, I’m evaluating a decrease extremity impairment and have discovered no goal impairment beneath Chapter 17. Can I give a 3% entire particular person impairment to this case because of the limitation of some actions of every day residing?
A: No. The brand new schedule states that an impairment ranking based mostly on the physique or organ ranking system of the AMA Guides could also be elevated as much as 3% for ache that’s above and past the ache related to the underlying impairment ranking. Underneath the brand new schedule, a subjective impairment (ache) can solely be used as a possible add-on to an current impairment. (See illustration in query under)
The 2005 PDRS states on web page 1–12 as follows:
The utmost allowance for ache ensuing from a single harm is 3% WPI whatever the variety of impairments ensuing from that harm.
There’s one exception to this “no stand-alone” rule for ache. It’s not an add-on, it is the stand-alone ranking for headache ache and has the next ranking string:
13.01.00.99 – 3 [1.4] – 4 – 322F – 4 – 4%
Once more, the extent for WPI headache ache ALSO can’t exceed 3%. (See Herb v. County of Los Angeles, 2023 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 114 (Appeals Board noteworthy panel resolution), for an additional glorious dialogue as to how one can fee headache ache throughout the confines and dictates of the 2005 PDRS.)
E. Conclusion – The Highway to Accuracy Is Paved with Good Intentions
The historic thread for this piece of laws and its implementation is quite convoluted, however there’s a lengthy and winding highway to comply with from legislative authorization to the 2005 PDRS.
The first step: In 2014, the legislature enacted Labor Code part 4660(b)(1) mandating use of the AMA Guides as an instrument of measurement for industrial impairments as follows:
For functions of this part, the “nature of the bodily harm or disfigurement” shall incorporate the descriptions and measurements of bodily impairments and the corresponding percentages of impairments revealed within the American Medical Affiliation (AMA) Guides to the Analysis of Everlasting Impairment (fifth Version)…
Step two: The legislature directed the Administrative Director (AD) to organize the 2005 PDRS, and to tug applicable metrics from the AMA Guides to make sure consistency when ranking the extent of impairments. See Labor Code part 4660(e):
On or earlier than January 1, 2005, the executive director shall undertake laws to implement the modifications made to this part by the act that added this subdivision.
Step three: Pursuant to the above legislative authority, the AD has adopted the revised schedule for ranking everlasting disabilities, i.e., the 2005 PDRS. Since most of the metrics of the AMA Guides Fifth Version are contradictory and inappropriate, these metrics weren’t integrated into the 2005 PDRS. The metrics that weren’t integrated into the 2005 PDRS shall not be utilized by medical evaluators or practitioners to calculate an injured employee’s entire particular person impairment.
In culinary parlance, the AMA Guides is the pantry full of many various components. The 2005 PDRS is the cookbook. The AD pulled many components from the AMA Guides “pantry” to create our PD ranking guidebook, now often called the 2005 PDRS. When there is a battle between a metric of the AMA Guides and a directive of the 2005 PDRS, the 2005 PDRS all the time prevails.
This is because of the truth that the AMA Guides is just a reference instrument created by the American Medical Affiliation. The 2005 PDRS, then again, was created by the AD of the Division of Staff’ Compensation beneath the Division of Industrial Relations, on the route of the Legislature. See organizational chart at: https://www.dir.ca.gov/org_chart/org_chart.pdf.
Follow Tip: Chapters 1 and a pair of of the AMA Guides present in depth steerage on how one can precisely fee impairments. I learn these chapters not less than every year, and often discover a nugget of knowledge that meshes precisely with an issue I am making an attempt to unravel. I hope that you can find this apply helpful as effectively.
Reminder: Board panel choices usually are not binding precedent.
© Copyright 2025 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.
