Mr. Chalk presented the work of the CAAA on the subject, and even if you don't agree with all - or any - of their positions, they are to be congratulated on some diligent and thoughtful advocacy. I am sure that The AMA Guides, 5th Edition has never been subjected to such minute scrutiny and thorough analysis, not only line by line but literally word by word. The result has been a somewhat controversial approach including rating "by analogy" and rating by "loss of pre-injury functional capacity". Additionally there is an expanded list of "compensable consequences"  or as I prefer to call them "derivative problems" such as Sleep and Arousal Disorders, Urogenital Dysfunction, Cognitive and GI side effects of medication, and the more well known Psychiatric considerations.

Ms. Faina clued us in on how the Rating Bureau actually is handling some of these matters. The somewhat arcane nature of the WPI in California was explained, along with examples of how omnibus ratings from doctors get deconstructed to allow for Age, Occupation, and DEC adjustments before being "reconstructed."

So, what is the AME to do in a situation such as this wherein the waters are truly unchartered? Well we went ahead and solicited input from some of our referral sources on "The biggest mistakes AMEs make" and on  "What are the things that the Judge and others look for in a report that make it stand out as high caliber AME?"  Some  informative and very helpful replies were received, and then distributed to all of our doctors. It was reassuring to learn that many of the recommendations are already in use at Newton Medical Group. Some of the better suggestions will be digested further and incorporated into our reports.