Injured workers lose out on their rightful compensation and medical care entirely too often due to indefinite and sometimes even downright crummy medical reports from their doctors. This is a very unfortunate and readily preventable outcome for a worker with in injury or medical condition arising from factors of his or her employment.

Narrative medical reports are not usually necessary for simple and obvious traumatic injuries with rapid return to work. But the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs will require medical narratives for occupational illness claims, claims where some doubt exists about the worker’s version of events, or claims where the disability becomes unexpectedly long and OWCP engages in further claim development. Further development also occurs when a “quick closed” claim exceeds $1,500 in medical costs or lost work days are incurred with resultant submission of form CA-2a. These are exactly the claims with larger financial and career consequences for the injured worker, making it crucial that a quality medical report is submitted. OWCP will generally give the injured worker a development letter, stating what further information is required, and typically granting the injured worker thirty days to submit or face denial of the claim.

The doctors can be forgiven up to a point, because OWCP demands that the physician be a medical witness to the fact that the patient has an injury or medical condition arising from factors of Postal Service employment. Since the doctor probably never saw the patient performing any postal work, the typical physician would rather stick to medical determinations, and not get involved in a litigation process with a Federal government agency.

Very few doctors would claim any expertise in Postal Service workings, and a growing number of doctors are really skeptical about getting involved with injury compensation claims due to frustrating paperwork, aggravation from Postal management, and delays in receipt of payment. An effective medical report needs to have four basic qualities, as discussed below:

Unequivocal Diagnosis

The report needs to explain exactly what the medical condition is, and how the physician perfected the diagnosis. Wishy washy or speculative statements such as “possible torn rotator cuff” that reflect uncertainty by the physician or non-medical diagnoses such as “exquisite tenderness” will not factually establish a compensation claim. Appropriate diagnoses by an insufficient medical authority, such as a physician’s assistant (PaC) or a mental diagnosis by a master’s level counselor (MSW) will not establish compensable injury due to lack of authority under OWCP regulations. Authority problems can be overcome if the supervising physician , clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist will give a concurring signature in addition to that of the therapist.

• Mr. Adams has bilateral calcaneous heel spurs, as visibly demonstrated by examination and confirmed by X-ray.
• Ms. Smith has carpal tunnel syndrome, severe right wrist, moderate left wrist, as established by positive Phalen’s and Tinel’s sign and definitely confirmed by positive EMG examination.
• Mr. Jones has a torn medial meniscus in the right knee, with obvious crepitus. The diagnosis was further supported by positive sign on MRI examination.

Disability statements need to confirm exactly what the injured worker can or cannot do, now! Statements such as, “it would not be advisable for the patient to continue walking in the future,” “should avoid repetitive work to prevent worsening of symptoms,” or “should not pivot” do not establish real, work-related disability. OWCP does not award compensation for future or potential disabilities. Examples of some actual disability statements are found below:

• Due to the patient’s disc herniation at L4, with resultant nerve root impingement, Mr. Brown cannot safely lift more than 10 pounds.
• Mr. Johnson will be fully disabled for 4 to 6 weeks, following her recent arthroscopy and knee reconstruction, and will require sit down work for at least six weeks more.
• Due to her powerful phobic reaction to even a photograph of a vicious dog, it is imperative that Ms. Anderson not be employed outside where exposure to canines could occur or an extreme expression of her disabling symptoms is assured.
• Ms. Graham’s severe asthma exacerbation followed her occupational exposure to sub-zero temperatures, requiring hospitalization for two days, and extensive inhalation therapy for the following week. She was fully disabled from all work between January 10-19, 2003.

The medical report must demonstrate that the physician understands the occupational demands that gave rise to the injury. Otherwise, how could the doctor connect the medical findings to an occupational origin? Occupational history is not an obvious requirement in the eyes of the physician, unless the injured worker does some educating. A written statement from the injured worker (such as the statement to accompany Form CA-2) makes it very simple for the physician to include a few essential comments about the work performed by the injured worker. Examples of such physician understanding follow below:

• Mr. Green has been a city letter for the past nineteen years. Incumbent in this work is the obvious requirement to walk many miles a day and climb stairs, while carrying a satchel filled with mail matter.
• Ms. Kaminski is a router, a type of letter carrier who cases mail for her whole tour. This exposes her to as much as eight hours of repetitive hand motion as she places mail piece-by-piece into a mail case.
• Mr. Davis must push a large gurney across the parking lot every day to load his mail truck. On the date of the injury he reported that there was six inches of heavy snow in the parking lot, greatly increasing the strain on his previously-injured lower back.

Failure to establish the causal relationship between a medical condition and its occupational origin is the primary why major compensation claims go wrong. This problem can seem insurmountable to an injured worker and utterly frustrating to the physician who tries repeatedly to satisfy OWCP. However, if a medical report has developed an unequivocal diagnosis, actual disability findings, and a sound occupational history, it is really quite easy for the physician to connect the injury to the employment due to the creation of a logical frame of reference. The statements that follow show examples of medical rationale leading to very logical conclusions about the occupational origin of the injury or illness.

• Mr. Brown’s reported that he experienced severe back pain following the awkward lifting of a heavy fruit parcel from a gurney during the holiday season and that this pain worsened as he continued delivering more parcels. It is my reasoned medical judgment that the disc herniation at L4 with resultant nerve root impingement arose from the occupational requirement that he lift such parcels. Such lifting would certainly be competent to cause or further aggravate this type of injury.
• Mr. Johnson reports that after he slipped on some painted stairs while delivering his mail route, twisting the right knee, with immediate swelling. The knee never recovered. Given his lack of previous symptoms, it is my reasoned medical opinion that the severe twisting of the patient’s knee was the mechanism that produced this injury.
• After requiring more than seventy stitches to repair the deep wounds on her arms and legs, inflicted by a Pit Bull Terrier on her mail route, I find that Ms. Anderson’s powerful phobic reaction to even a photograph of a vicious dog is the unfortunate, but logical consequence of her traumatic occupational injury. Based on her history and clinical presentation, my diagnosis is phobic reaction with severe underlying depression which I attribute to her disfiguring injuries. I am unaware of any other factor in the life of the patient that can adequately explain my clinical findings aside from the occupational origin.
• As noted, Ms. Graham’s severe asthma exacerbation followed her occupational exposure to sub-zero temperatures on January 10, 2003 while delivering mail. Exposure to severely cold temperatures is a well established risk factor for asthmatics. The causal relationship between the exposure of this patient while at work to very cold ambient temperature and her immediate, subsequent asthma attack is undeniable.

Remember that the injured worker has one good chance to make a positive impression, both with medical submissions and with any personal answers. So what the injured worker and the medical authorities say the first time has a great bearing on the ultimate development of the claim. OWCP is not a malicious organization. But OWCP is a cautious organization—very cautious about awarding benefits unless the injured worker can prove entitlement. If you truly are an injured Federal worker, work diligently to establish your proofs. Doctors are trained, professional human beings, but they are not gods. If your doctor writes a lame or speculative report, or is totally off point, do not submit it. Go back and tell him or her what you need and what you have at stake. Don’t waste that one good chance to make a positive impression.

Click here to return to the Michigan State Web Site

---