John Stanish v. WCAB (James J. Anderson Construction Company); 1870 C.D. 2009; filed December 7, 2010; by Senior Judge Flaherty

The court invalidates the results of an ire because the ire physician did not use the most recent edition of the AMA guides.

Following the claimant's work injury, the employer requested an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE) within the time frame that would allow the employer to obtain self-executing relief. The results of the evaluation were that the claimant had a 13% impairment, and the employer issued form LIBC-764, changing the claimant's status from total disability to partial disability. The claimant challenged the IRE by filing a modification petition and arguing that the IRE was not valid since the 5th Edition of the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) was used and not the most recent 6th Edition. The workers' compensation judge denied the claimant's petition, concluding that the IRE physician used the 5th Edition of the AMA Guides because the Bureau informed all IRE physicians that the 5th and 6th Editions would be accepted until August 31, 2008. In addition, the workers' compensation judge concluded that the claimant failed to present evidence to support a finding that his impairment rating was equal to or greater than 50%. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board affirmed. The Commonwealth Court vacated the workers' compensation judge's decision, holding that §306 (a.2) (1) mandated that the degree of impairment be determined based upon an evaluation pursuant to the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. While the court considered the Bureau's decision to phase in the use of the newest edition of the AMA Guides as reasonable, they nevertheless found it inconsistent with the Act. The court directed the workers' compensation judge to allow the employer to have the claimant submit to a new IRE for calculation of impairment under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The court also indicated that the employer would still have the right to self-executing relief since they acted in reliance on the Bureau's directive in scheduling the first IRE.

Case Law Alert - 2nd Qtr 2011