HOME PAGE

   
GO to Injured Worker Forum
Navigation:


FORUMS > UR, MPN & ACOEM
Replying to Thread: EMG/NCS and MRI
Created On Friday 7, November, 2008 2:46 PM by rosellavera


New forums at: http://forums.workcompcentral.com
Username:
Password:

Remember my login



Forget your login information?





rosellavera
Senior Member

Posts: 431
Joined: Jul 2005

Friday November 07, 2008 2:46 PM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

How often can a patient undergo these studies per year? Once, twice?

Thank you,

Rose

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



rider001
Member

Posts: 53
Joined: Aug 2005

Friday November 07, 2008 4:46 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

Once to confirm or deny diagnosis, when a P&S report is forth coming, and if a pt's symtoms have significantly increased. But to answer your question: As often as the carrier is willing pay for them.

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



gaiassoul1@yahoo.com
Senior Member

Posts: 1275
Joined: Feb 2004

Friday November 07, 2008 4:56 PM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

depends on the diagnosis, depends on intervening trauma, depends on rationale....there are no timeframes carved in stone here.

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



rosellavera
Senior Member

Posts: 431
Joined: Jul 2005

Friday November 07, 2008 7:58 PM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

EMG/NCS 6 months ago. Normal studies. These studies were conducted by a PQME. DOI 2005. I/W has not worked since. Under FMC, PTP wants another EMG/NCS. UR timely denies. FMC per PQME (elbow injury) over the counter medication and periodic follow ups with PTP. Why would PTP want to do further electrodiagnostic studies if the ones done 6 months ago were normal?

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



stewshe@comcast.net
Senior Member

Posts: 1381
Joined: Jun 2002

Sunday November 09, 2008 2:35 PM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

rosellavera,

If there has been a change in symptoms suggestive of "nerve" problems, then that would be a reason to repeat the studies.

Perhaps ulnar nerve problems suggesting possibly a surgery with the EMG/NCS being needed to confirm or refute the possible diagnosis?

From the fact a study was "normal" yesterday, it does not follow the same studies have to be the same today. There are many possibilities.

-------------------------
Stew (James T. Stewart) e-mail: stewshe@comcast.net
Author: Work Comp Index & Tables & Schedules in "The Labor Code Book," by LexisNexis/Matthew Bender.

7th ed. Work Comp Index (912 pgs), $119.00 ea; next ed. summer, 2010 {Discounts for orders of 12 or more}
Send check or money order & shipping info. (I cannot take credit cards.)

Prices INCLUDE sales tax, and shipping.

James T. Stewart; 1937 Santa Ana; Clovis, CA 93611

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



rider001
Member

Posts: 53
Joined: Aug 2005

Monday November 10, 2008 9:27 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

The results of EMG studies often vary depending on the machine used and the test administrator. I have seen on too many occaisions postive results on one machine and negative results on another. I would question any PTP who did not at least try repeating studies before making a final determination.

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



Doc Newton
Junior Member

Posts: 11
Joined: Oct 2008

Monday December 01, 2008 7:35 AM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

The fact pattern given here is rather sparse so I may be going out on a limb a bit.

Elbow injuries can secondarily involve the ulnar nerve which gives characteristic symptoms of numbness and dysesthesias into the 5th and 4th digits. If this is the case here, a negative EMG/NCV would not exclusively rule out ulnar neuropathy. Reasons?

1- First EMG/NCV study was technically suboptimal.

2- First EMG/NCV study was incomplete and failed to include measurement of the
"across elbow segment" as well as the "below elbow segment"

3- Condition progressed, notwithstanding time away from the job, the so-called
"tardy ulnar neuropathy" described in the neurological literature.

This is one of those cases where a blanket "yes" or "no" cannot be given. I would be interested in the rationale of the PTP who rightfully bears the burden of explaining the need for testing. I have seen all too many cases where a new PTP comes on the scene and orders a barrage of repeat testing for no good reason. On the other hand I have seen cases where a diligent and thorough new PTP reassesses a case and establishes a diagnosis previously missed.

-------------------------
Fredric H. Newton, MD
Founder/CEO, Newton Medical Group
www.newtonmedicalgroup.com
Neurologist
510-208-4700
rick.newton1@comcast.net

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom

You are in message post mode [ FORUMS : THREADS ]

FuseTalk 3.0 - Copyright © 1999-2002 e-Zone Media Inc. All rights reserved.
© 2013 WorkCompCentral Workers Compensation Forums