ALJ Kranz Credits AMA Guides 6th Edition over 5th, Edition

MCALLISTER-NEWSOME LONNIE v NORTHROP GRUMMAN


Review Board (“Board”) has held that the Act does not require the administrative law judge
(ALJ) to adhere to any physician’s opinion, particular guide, or formula. Mazze v. Frank J.
Holleran, Inc., 9 BRBS 1053, 1055 (1978). The Board expanded this holding to note that the
ALJ “may consider a variety of medical opinions and observations in addition to claimant's
description of symptoms and physical effects of his injury in assessing the extent of claimant's
disability.” Pimpinella v. Universal Mar. Serv. Inc., 27 BRBS 154, 159 (1993)(citing Bachich v.
Seatrain Terminals of California, Inc., 9 BRBS 184 (1978)). The ALJ may rely on the Guides in
determining the extent of loss of the use of a body part but is not required to do so except in
cases involving hearing loss. Ortega v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 7 BRBS 639 (1978). The
ALJ is entitled to weigh all the evidence, medical or otherwise, before him and to rely on that
evidence which he finds most credible. Ennis v. O'Hearne, 223 F.2d 755, 758 (4th Cir.1955).
Guides 5th and 6th Editions.

Claimant urges that the rating calculated under the 5th Edition be credited, while
Employer avers that the 6th Edition represents an advance in medical consensus and science,
reconciling many criticisms of prior editions, and accordingly Dr. Cavazos’ rating based on that
edition is most accurate.

The Fourth Circuit has noted that, with respect to hearing loss impairments, “The AMA
Guides are specified because they are ‘the most widely accepted medical standards and
[Congress] wish[ed] to assure that determinations will always be in accordance with the most
recently revised edition.’” Green-Brown v. Sealand Services, Inc. 586 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 2009)
(quoting H.R. Rep. No. 98-1027, at 28 (1984) (Conf.Rep.), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.
2771, 2778.) While that particular case dealt with hearing loss, the notion that impairment rating
determinations should be made in accordance with the most recently revised edition of the
Guides is common sense and can be extrapolated to many types of injuries. Further, I note that
the Fourth Circuit released this decision in 2009, after the publication of the 6th Edition, and
therefore encompasses that edition.5 Accordingly, I will consider impairment ratings based on  the 6th Edition to be more credible than those based on the 5th Edition, notwithstanding other
factors to the contrary.

... full case ...

http://www.oalj.dol.gov/Decisions/ALJ/LHC/2010/MCALLISTER-NEWSOME_L_v_NORTHROP_GRUMMAN_SHI_2010LHC02