The Latest Brown Bag of cases

On November 19th there was another Brown Bag seminar by Prehearing Judge Eley that covered the recent notable cases. While there are no published cases from the appeals courts there were cases at the lower levels which we call ICAP (Industrial Claim Appeals Panel). These cases are the next level up after a hearing decision. They tell us what cases are being appealed. You are urged to listen to

the online materials for November. Attorneys can obtain continuing legal education credits by listening to these short seminars monthly but anyone can benefit by listening to the case review by Judge Eley. Moreover each month they also post the cases which you can read on your own. Perhaps the case which I found most interesting was the Baran case. It lets us know that the issue of permanent injury should be deferred until the DIME (Division Independent Medical Examination) is performed. There the other side wanted to close out the case but the claimant wanted to pursue a DIME. My experience with the DIME process is that in the vast majority of times it is better to go for it then to ignore your right to it. It does require a judgment call by the attorney or party but if properly done it can often greatly benefit a claimant. The treating physician is seldom independent and often can rate the injury as too low. He can even say treatment is over when another doctor may believe that more treatment can help. The DIME process is a great process to use provided you obtain a good physician for the exam. The selection process requires careful analysis and choice but an experienced attorney usually gains much for the claimant by using the process. In any event you can review the Baran case and other recent cases by reading or listening to this Brown Bag seminar for November 2015.

All About Claims Newsletter, Issue 37

The Colorado Division of Workers Compensation has issued a new newsletter, issue number 37. A newsletter is an informal way of providing insight as to what is happening at the Division. This latest newsletter contains an interview with Chief Administrative Law Judge Goldstein. It provides his history and experiences. In addition the newsletter gives us other news such as the addresses for prehearings and the Office of Administrative Courts. It also discusses some changes in the Division IME (DIME) law. I enjoy the newsletters and expect that many others do too. Reading about the people involved with workers compensation and getting insight on changes as they come along are both informative and enjoyable. I would love to see these newsletters issued with regularity.

Colorado Legislative Update 2013

Colorado posted an update for recent workers comp legislation at the Division website. With respect to the specific statutory legislation that was also posted by the Division. You are encouraged to read the updates. I shall not discuss all of them but one is significant regarding a DIME (Division Independent Medical Examination). It used to be the insurer had 30 days from the mailing of the DIME report to accept it and admit based on it or to apply for a hearing. The time frame is reduced to 20 days but it is from when the Division issues a Notice of Receipt of the report. Another new provision provides that the insurer must pay for reasonable and necessary medical expenses when the claim is later found compensable. I'd say that means they will pay if they contest the claim but it goes against them. Perhaps that will help when you seek treatment on a contested case if you later have it determined to be compensable. Previously if you sought treatment even if you won at hearing they'd say they did not owe for any treatment up to then because it was unauthorized. Also another new law requires they recalculate your benefits within 15 days from the date a fringe benefit like health coverage is terminated by notice. Another key provision concerns what we used to call an 18 month DIME. That now is 24 months and if MMI is determined that doctor can rate the impairment like a regular DIME. There is more but these are significant enough to draw to your attention. UPDATE: The Division issued an alert for adjusters on the new requirements which affect all DIMEs. Check it out here.

The Meza case on 18 month DIME opinions

On May 9, 2013 the Colorado Court of Appeals issued the Meza case. The case has been in the system for years. Originally the claimant hurt his right foot in an admitted on the job injury. He was treated an eventually released back to work without restrictions or impairment. Four years later after ongoing pain the claim was reopened and he received additional treatment. Because the claimant was still being treated by the authorized physician and 18 months had gone by the employer sought a DIME (division sponsored independent medical examination). This is permitted by statute. This 18 month DIME found the claimant to be at MMI (maximum medical improvement) and rated his permanent impairment at 20 per cent (part for the spine and part for CRPS a nerve disease). All related to the original injury. Respondents filed a Final Admission and the claimant argued the 18 month DIME only can address MMI so he needed to be returned to his authorized physician for a rating. A judge agreed and his authorized doctor rated him at 27 per cent impaired. Respondents then sought a regular DIME which resulted in a rating of 4 per cent. The second DIME removed from the rating that portion for the CRPS and spine because it was unrelated to the work injury. Read the case for more details on the history. In any event the claimant at a hearing sought to overcome the second DIME and also assert that the 18 month DIME opinion was binding on the second DIME in addressing that the spine and CRPS was causally related to the work injury. The claimant lost and eventually the case got to the Court of Appeals. There the claimant lost again. This case really discusses an 18 month DIME and what effect it has on a later DIME. The court determined the 18 month DIME only can address MMI. Even causality can be addressed in a rating by a regular DIME. It is clear the court limited an 18 month DIME to a narrow issue so a later DIME is not bound by the rating or causal opinion of an 18 month DIME. I had thought that causality is part of every DIME opinion but it appears the court made a distinction between an 18 month DIME and a regular DIME. UPDATE: See my blog post for June 10, 2013 where statutory changes were made altering future use of this case as precedent.

ICAP Almanza case on DIME jurisdictional requirement

The Almanza case decided by ICAP several weeks ago reminds us about the awesome power of a jurisdictional situation. It is not freely available on the web but I was provided it in a recent update. It reminds us that anything that is jurisdictional must be carefully handled. In this case there was a DIME examination and report issued. Respondents were concerned about the examination and sought by motion to delay the requirement that they either admit based on the report or contest it with a hearing application. They requested an extension of time to admit or contest the DIME report until depositions were conducted. A prehearing ALJ (administrative law judge) agreed and issued an order of extension. Ultimately this led to a hearing where the claimant's impairment rating was reduced because the DIME report was not a proper DIME report and a new DIME had reduced it. The claimant appealed to ICAP. In this decision ICAP determined the original extension of time was error because it is a jurisdictional matter. The requirement to admit or contest the DIME report is 30 days and no extension granted by the judge was proper. It further ruled the original report was not improper. The DIME physician had a communication with the claimants interpreter which while improper did not invalidate the report as a matter of law. Here the claimants appeal was successful and the original DIME rating was ordered. So where a matter is jurisdictional it is almost etched in stone. Respondents must admit or contest a DIME report within 30 days as provided by law. No extensions are possible although Respondents in this case could have contested it and sought a delay of the hearing date which is not a jurisdictional matter.

Colorado workers comp insurance rates to go up

The Denver Post is reporting that businesses can expect a rate increase on their workers compensation insurance coverage. This after a few years of declines. Why? The number of claims is not going up. The explanation appears to be in the continuous and unrelenting increase in medical costs. Here is the Colorado statement on all this. This rise in medical costs when the economy is not inflating remains ominous for all of us. The failure of society to address this is rather sad. We all talk about it but it takes a concerted effort and in our politically charged country we are less interested in problem solving and more in ideology. Wouldn't it be nice if they set up a task force to address such costs in a sensible way? I mean an across the board analytical review. If medications are a big factor find ways to lower that expense. If we need more nurses or practitioners find ways to increase the numbers with educational incentives. If caution leads to the running of multiple and usually unneeded tests find ways to prioritize those tests rather then run all of them at a time. If malpractice rates are too high find ways to make providers accountable without increasing those rates. I mean weed out the bad apples especially in workers compensation. Simplify the paperwork too! While I do like the medical treatment guidelines I saw recently what appears to be making it more complicated to obtain prior authorization. In workers compensation there are many disputes in what I see as primarily medical legal issues. When we go to a hearing and it seems to be a legal issue on compensability in reality many such cases involve medical causality. So some of these rising costs involve insurers hiring experts to question causality and treatment. As an example an attorney related to me that he had obtained a DIME opinion that the claimant is not at MMI. In the past this just led to more treatment and a reassessment. Overcoming a DIME historically has not been easy but the pattern is now to question everything. There are doctors out there that will nearly always assert an injury is not work related or that the DIME doctor made a mistake. A DIME would cost $675 but they spend $5000 or more fighting it. The point is not all the rising costs in workers compensation are based on purely medical matters. Some come from the insurer disputing matters. It also drags out the proceedings which I do not really see as helping the claimant needing treatment and it is costly. In any event businesses can expect higher workers comp premiums next year.

Division IME Forms Including a new one WC78

You can access numerous forms pertaining to DIME's or Division IME's at this webpage maintained by the Division. It includes a new form which pertains to requesting a DIME to assess maximum medical improvement (MMI) after 18 months. Usually your treating physician determines MMI as soon as possible but there are times when he has not addressed it despite the passage of much time and treatment. The insurer may then seek to arrange a DIME to determine MMI. This new form WC78 is part of that process. Be aware that this 18 month DIME is addressing MMI. If impairment is also addressed it does not mean that is anything more then informational. In a recent Industrial Claims Appeal case I call Baca the insurer went with an 18 month DIME and then went with that DIME's impairment rating which was zero. They filed a Final Admission trying to close the case. The local judge ruled against them and struck the Final Admission. directing that the claimant return to the treating physician for the rating. The higher panel in effect stopped the appeal because that ruling did not deal with money or benefits but the case makes us all aware that an 18 month DIME may not address impairment in a way that can be acted upon by the insurer. Of course the Baca case may not be over but the form WC78 issued shortly thereafter indicates any rating by a 18 month DIME is informational only.

DIME Brochure

A DIME or Division Independent Medical Examination is a very unique process which allows those requesting it to seek to obtain a truly neutral evaluation of a claimant's impairment and treatment plus even more. It is a powerful force in keeping the system honest since most treating physicians have been selected by the employer/insurer and many claimants remain suspicious of that. To claimants such physicians often seem not to be on their side. In point of fact they may be quite capable but there are others who may be less then thorough or devoted to the patient/claimant. A DIME affords a claimant or even the other side the opportunity to have treatment and impairment reviewed. Moreover the law has made a DIME a strong force that can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence in most cases. There are exceptions but the general rule requires strong evidence to overcome the DIME opinion especially on the issue of MMI or impairment. The Division has a brochure available to review the DIME process and it is worth reading. In my practice we use the DIME process in the vast majority of cases though in some cases we do accept the treaters opinion. By the way you can agree with the treaters rating but still seek permanent total disability by objecting and following through as set forth by the law. A physician may say you have 20% impairment but for you perhaps you can no longer work. You have the right to seek total disability but you must act timely and sensibly to make your case. A lawyer is usually essential here.

Munoz Court Case on DIME waiver

The Court of Appeals decided yesterday to reverse ICAP and the hearing judge on an issue concerning seeking a DIME. The claimant requested a DIME to review the treating doctors opinion. A DIME is a Division Independent Medical Examination which involves a process to select a doctor to conduct the examination on various medical matters such as MMI and impairment. In Munoz the claimant sought a DIME and requested a specific type of doctor. However that was not provided so he applied for a hearing to address the selection. In the meantime he did not schedule the appointment with the physician in question then set to do the DIME. Instead he filed a second application seeking penalties against the state agency for not staying the matter pending resolution of his hearing issue A hearing judge and ICAP decided he had not stayed the process by filing an application for hearing so he lost by waiver his right to seek the DIME. The claimant argued the application for hearing was sufficient to stay the DIME process. The judge and ICAP decided any stay had to be by law a motion and an application did not do it. They concluded he waived his right by not filing the motion. The appellate court reversed ICAP and determined an application for hearing was good enough to preserve the claimants right to have his DIME concerns addressed before proceeding. This appeal was more complicated then what I have indicated as it was argued the claimant did not even preserve his right to appeal and also the claimant wanted to penalize the state Division of Workers Compensation for not staying the process when he sought a hearing. Usually appeals are not simplistic but the key part of the decision involved a claimants right to stay a DIME process to address his concerns on the selection process. You can read the case here.

All About Claims Newsletter March 2011

The Colorado Division of Workers Compensation has just released a new newsletter. In it you can read the comments of former Judge Jaynes who recently passed away. There is also something on the DIME (Division Independent Medical Exam) process. The newsletter approach is a good one and would be even better if it were a regular feature. Giving us a glimpse inside the state agency makes it rather unique. Being able to just talk about things in a very informal way is helpful. It puts a face on what we sometimes see as bureaucratic when actually it is human. Many good people do their best in this field. The field itself may need much improvement but those who work in it have not been the problem. In fact looking back on the many years I have been doing it I have to acknowledge that the people at the Division and those handling hearings have been, for the most part, very decent and intelligent people. They are decent because they are respectful of others even when they must follow the rules. They are intelligent in doing their best to be fair and legally accurate in what is often a very complex field. Most of them and most who practice in this area believe they are making a difference as do I. Having said that I should add that some adjusters and employers do not play fair at all. Yet dealing with them can be difficult but also very rewarding when done right.

Colorado Injured Workers Survey

Over at the Colorado Division of Workers Compensation they just posted the results of a survey now required by law. Once the case is over or close to over a survey request is sent out to the claimant. For this first survey not that many responded but it is enough to tell us something. The survey itself asks about courtesy, promptness, medical care and overall satisfaction. The weakest area, according to claimants finishing their case, is in disputes being promptly resolved. Amen to that as delays are common in a field originally set up with good intentions. Most cases seem to take 2 years if they involve a serious injury and an attorney. Some cases go much faster but often it is because they are being treated as minor. I have always planned on at least a year but it does depend on the injury and how much medical care is needed. Even then many cases seem to drag on largely because the system has remedies that take time to work through. A Division IME adds a minimum of 3 or 4 months to the process. You file this paper and wait for the other side. Then they file and you respond. Then you wait for the Division to give you doctor names and then once selected there is a window within which you must set the appointment. Even then it takes time to receive the report and more time for the insurer to act before the claimant can act. It is a bit like a baseball game as the law gives each side a time at bat so no matter how fast you want to go it takes time to line it all up. As for the survey results you can access them by clicking here. Pinnacol received a 3.6 grade out of 5 for overall satisfation. Zurich Insurance was a 4 and the worst among the larger companies was Kroger at 2.5 but all the results have been posted. You may need a spreadsheet program to look at it all but what it tells me is that the overall grade is like a C or C plus. Let me add this...it is not good enough for those disabled and relying on a government mandated compensation program to say it was just okay. Claimants are often hurting physically, financially and are also stressed by the situation even under the best of circumstances. They deserve courtesy, promptness and decent medical care. To me the lower the grade the more adversarial the company. Persistent low grades on surveys may warrant further review or further regulation.

Supreme Court reverses Court of Appeals in Ruff

Yesterday the Colorado Supreme Court issued a decision in the Ruff case. The issue posed to the court and at the original hearing was over a possible conflict of interest in a Division Independent Medical Examination (DIME). The claimant argued that the physician had at least the appearance of a conflict of interest so how can the exam be fair and impartial. In the case the physician selected had received some $600 a month from Pinnacol (the insurer in the case) for being an advisor and also was in Selectnet the Pinnacol endorsed medical group. So it was argued that it was inappropriate and should have led to a disqualification of the physician. The ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) decided it was not a conflict and the Court of Appeals decided it might require more review by the ALJ. The Supreme Court decided the Court of Appeals went too far and that there was no conflict on the facts of the case. Merely receiving some money and being in Selectnet was not enough to establish the sort of conflict of interest to disqualify the doctor. The dissent noted that in Selectnet the physician received 25% of his income and since this might raise questions about impartiality that the Court of Appeals should have been affirmed. There really was no evidence that the doctor was not professional and objective but his status as a Pinnacol advisor and being in Selectnet seemed to raise a question about his objectivity.

Impairment Rating Tips February 2010

Colorado workers compensation claimants who reach or seem to have reached MMI (maximum medical improvement) are often rated by an authorized treating physician or if requested by another doctor in an Independent Medical Examination. The Division has just issued its new Impairment Rating Tips. These are recommendations primarily for the use of the rating physicians but they are useful to others. The tips are 7 pages so quite a bit of ground is covered. One tip concerns the use of what is called contralateral measurements. This tip seems to allow a doctor to measure the uninjured side and compare it with the injured side. My view is that this seems to disregard the AMA guides for Colorado which set forth how to rate impairment. By statute (see CRS 8-42-107(8)) the Guides instructions seem to be required. Setting them aside for another way to calculate in my view conflicts with the law but the contralateral tip is there to read. These new Tips are an interesting read and I'd suggest spending a few minutes to look them over. While these are not legally mandatory since they are written primarily for physicians we may see them referred to and followed by them.

Court of Appeals decides a DIME is not a medical benefit

In a short case decided on August 6, 2009 the Colorado Court of Appeals decided that a Division IME is not a medical benefit. In Jones the court was presented with an effort to reopen the comp claim for more medical benefits. The problem for the claimant was that she was injured in 1998 so there were time limitations to deal with in trying to reopen the claim. The court said that the only way the claimant still had time to try reopen her claim is if the DIME was deemed a medical benefit. This would mean her 2004 DIME examination let her have until 2006 to try reopen if the court agreed. The court did not and determined a DIME is not a medical benefit. A DIME is a medical examination but because it involves no treatment or healing it is not a "medical benefit" according to this decision. While I understand the reasoning (the case is very brief) I do have to question it. Believe it or not there is no statutory definition of what is a "medical benefit". There is no question the DIME physician does not render treatment but the opinion he renders may address further treatment. For more information on a DIME click the subject on our blog. For example your authorized doctor may have said you need medications for another 6 months but the DIME doctor may say you need psychological care or long term medications. In a sense the DIME can trigger more treatment but at a minimum even if nothing further is recommended he does address medical issues. This includes your need for further treatment as of the date of his exam. If we think of medical benefits as treatment then clearly a DIME is not a medical benefit. If we think of medical benefits to include any medical exam to assess the need for more treatment then it is a medical benefit. If we ask was it a medical matter I think it was. If we ask if its a benefit then again it is one created by statute. So then putting the two words together and using their plain meaning you do have to question the decision. However for now the Jones case tells us a DIME is not a medical benefit.

Statutory Law Changes for 2009

Here, from the Division of Workers Compensation website is an overview of recent Colorado legislation that affects injured workers, doctors, insurers and even Pinnacol Assurance (the largest quasi-public/private insurer in workers comp in Colorado. Also if you click here you can read the actual legislative changes. I notice that some of these legislative changes are because of cases that went against claimants. For example there is a change to allow psych impairments so as to get over the first statutory cap (yes there are caps limiting benefits). Another avoids the Division IME being attacked for not contacting the authorized treating physician so long as he has resolved certain differences with other doctors. These items have been ways for claimants not to receive adequate benefits. They allowed the other side to attack the claimants Division IME rating by saying the doctor did not contact some other doctor so his opinion could be overcome as not following the procedure in the AMA Guides. In another case the rating was kept under 25% and did not go higher because a psych rating was not added to make the rating higher. The difference can be many thousands of dollars. In any event the legislative changes are, by and large, helpful to claimants. Also Pinnacol has been in the news recently when it disputed the state effort to use some of its excess reserves towards the state budget. As I noted earlier Pinnacol is a hybrid mix of public and private elements. The state is going to seek more control over Pinnacol and some of this recent legislation seems to be setting up to do that. Lastly one change does seem unusual. An insurer IME must now be audio recorded which suggests that some of these IME's were misrepresenting what the claimant was saying during the examination. Regretably such matters often were so hostile that it led to making it mandatory to record the exam. These law changes are effective on different dates as indicated in the overview.

May 14, 2009 The Ruff case on conflict of interest

Just decided today is the Ruff case. Back on July 25, 2008 I posted an earlier Court of Appeals case we'll call Benuishis. It appears that this latest case totally disagrees with the earlier division of the same Court. The Colorado Court of Appeals has over 20 judges and more then one division to handle the many cases that are appealed. Both cases involved a Division Independent Medical Examination. It is quite obvious there is now a conflict in divisions of the court which usually means the Supreme Court will have to resolve matters. In the meantime here is the situation: If a DIME physician may have a conflict of interest because he or she receives much income from a party (like Pinnacol Assurance which uses some doctors quite a bit) then the administrative law judge at the hearing may have to consider if there is a sufficient appearance of a conflict of interest to remove the doctor as a DIME. What is not clear is what is the appearance of a conflict. Benuishis says receiving a lot of income from a party like Pinnacol is not by itself the appearance of a conflict and Ruff says it can be. Personally I agree with Ruff. I just do not like close financial relationships with insurers to be disregarded. If anything frequent use of a doctor or paying that doctor many times over may well taint that doctor or make his use as a DIME questionable. As medical professionals they may not see it that way but we're talking about an appearance of a conflict. Sometimes it is not an actual conflict of interest but the appearance of one that is so disturbing. The Colorado workers compensation system set up the DIME process with the intention of really trying to make it totally independent. We honor that intent by excluding all who might make it appear suspicious. That's why Caesar divorced his wife.

IME's and the doctor patient relationship

An IME or Independent Medical Examination is not a simple concept in Colorado. First, there is the Division Independent Medical Examination that is a very special exam permitted by workers compensation statute. Unless otherwise agreed the Division provides three doctors and the list is narrowed down to one who performs an exam and issues a report as required by the statute. It can often be very independent and may help provide more treatment or a higher permanent injury rating for the claimant then that provided by the doctor/clinic designated by the employer. In other words it often is a very effective tool to use to obtain more benefits for a claimant. There is an expense but it is almost always worth it provided it is set up properly. Second, there is the insurance IME where the insurance handpicks a doctor to examine the claimant and issue a report. That is far less likely to benefit the claimant and may even harm his interests. Such an IME may have no duty to the claimant as a doctor and even his report goes to the insurer. Some might call him a "hired gun" who helps the insurer. That may not be so but it does depend on who the doctor is and his history or repute in this area. Attorneys in the field do usually know that history or repute. Normally an insurer IME is to be viewed with suspicion but I do admit that some are quite decent. Also there are the claimant IME's where the claimant's counsel also wants the claimant examined by a doctor he trusts.
Aside from the different types of IME's I can say that in Colorado the insurer IME will seldom have any liability to a claimant. He may devastate the claimant's claim with his views but his duty is primarily to the insurer not the claimant. He may say the claimant doesn't need the surgery or has no case and he may even testify at a hearing to this effect in a contested case. One Colorado case on this is Martinez v. Lewis, 969 P.2d 213 (Colo. 1998). But a recent Arizona case I received makes a point of saying, that at least in Arizona, there can be liability. That case involved a workers comp claimant that delayed his surgery in part because of an insurer IME and that was the wrong thing to do. I then looked into Colorado caselaw and I don't see Colorado always giving 100% immunity to the insurer IME. Anyone looking into this may not only want to review Colorado caselaw but perhaps also look elsewhere for insight. The Arizona case gives us a clue that perhaps the insurer IME is not as safe from a malpractice claim as has been thought.

Which do you prefer Colorado or NY workers comp?

The Hew York Times has a long article on the terrible state of comp in New York. It gave me the shivers to read. In Colorado much can be done to improve our state's workers comp system. I still believe that arm and leg injuries deserve more benefits especially when the person loses his trade or occupation. But there are parts of our system that have worked well especially the DIME or Division Independent Medical Exam process. No doubt there are many cases where things do not go well but overall it seems at least better then NY State. Anyway read about the horrible state of workers comp in NY here. Those of us in this field know that most of our judges do try to apply the law. They also know that many doctors are not just hired guns by the insurers or second rate. Those that are can often be overridden by the DIME process. Our system is not perfect and many times employees are treated like old newspapers but there are some safeguards and rules which can be used to equalize the case. At least with solid legal effort you can increase benefits but the NY article makes it seem like NY is out of control. I am not sure on that but the article is an interesting read.

Nov. 13th One More Case...Montoya

In my last post I noted two cases decided on November 13th by the Colorado Court of Appeals. Actually one more case decision was issued. In Montoya, the authorized treating physician rated the claimant at 19% impaired. The insurer decided to dispute the rating and started up the process to seek a Division IME. That is the only way either side can dispute the rating so provided. Then the same doctor altered his opinion to reduce it because of a prior injury. The number went down to 15%. Of course now the insurer decided it could accept the rating so it cancelled the Division IME and filed a Final Admission in the case to close it but accept the amended rating. The claimant said the insurer could not do that but the court said the insurer could just that. The claimants reasoning was that the insurer was bound to go forward with the Division IME or be bound by the original rating. The court however had no problem with the insurer accepting the amended rating. While I understand the decision you have to ask what if the claimant had received a low rating and sought a DIME but then the doctor increased the rating. Could the claimant cancel the DIME and count on the insurer filing something to respond to that higher rating? Anyway read the Montoya case here.

After Your Rating...Now What?

Many people go through the workers compensation system in Colorado and eventually get rated (they receive an impairment calculation). Often they are then faced with a Final Admission by the insurer who seeks to close out the case. Perhaps they are to receive some permanent benefits if they did get rated but do they have any further remedy? Absolutely YES! In Colorado workers comp it is not over if you promptly act to protect yourself. You have 30 days from the date of mailing of the Final Admission to act and this deadline is strictly enforced. Your first choice is often to proceed with a DIME (Division Independent Exam) to obtain a new opinion on MMI and the rating. Often more is needed or the rating is higher then what you were given by the authorized physician. Also if you are severely disabled then you need to look into whether you are employable. If not you may be entitled to lifetime benefits or a much higher settlement then the admitted amount. Recently someone posted a comment on this blog and was concerned about getting a 12% rating yet being in much pain. I responded but it is an important enough comment to make sure everyone realizes that you do not have to accept the rating given to you by the doctor as all you are entitled to despite pain and other problems. While workers comp does not always compensate you for all your losses it is important to know that anyone unable to work may be entitled to much more then a rated award. Also you can also be entitled to more treatment. DO NOT ACCEPT A FINAL ADMISSION without carefully reviewing it (hopefully with an attorney). Do not accept one doctors rating as the end of your case. That may be the worst thing you can do. Those with severe disabilities really need to consult with an attorney wherever possible. Almost always much more can be done but at least check into it further. I've seen cases where doctors have said there is a zero rating receive substantial benefits. Sure I want law changes to provide more help for the injured but don't think the existing law is worthless. It is not at all. Pursue your options but do so with promptness.