Dear Lord,

It's Christmas Eve here, Christmas day in some parts of the land.  For many folks, it is hard to remember what this is all about.  There are injured workers throughout our state that are in the middle of claims disputes.  They can't work.  They don't have any income.  They are losing their possessions.  Some are losing their homes.  They hurt.  Not just physically, but emotionally.  Here it is Christmas, and they don't have anything to put under a tree.  I am sure there are many who don't even have a Christmas tree.  I can't imagine their despair.  The pain of knowing that when their children awake in the morning, there will not be any presents to open.  Embarrassment.  Hurt pride.  Feelings that a family is being let down.  It's easy, Lord, to get lost in that despair.  It goes beyond Christmas, for that is only one day.  It's easy to lose hope.

I pray for these people, Lord.  For healing.  For a new start.  For a job.  For peace.  For understanding.  For hope.  I pray that the rest of us will find a way to help, to show your love to those who need it.  I pray that this Christmas, we all will remember why we celebrate in the first place.  We celebrate Christ, his birth, his death and resurrection.  We celebrate the hope we have in Him.  Help us to find the love, that without Him would not be.  Praise God from whom all blessings flow!

In Jesus' Name, Amen.

I have visited with several claimants lately with extent of injury problems who have been advised by Ombudsmen to request a DD to resolve the dispute.  An extent of injury dispute is one where the actual diagnosis is in question, or a particular injury is disputed.  A common scenario is one where the Texas workers' comp insurance carrier accepts liability for a lumbar sprain but denies liability for the MRI findings, like a herniated disc.

Only in rare circumstances is it correct to request a DD to resolve an extent of injury question.  DD's have a lot of power.  Practically speaking, their opinion must be adopted by the DWC unless the evidence shows they were absolutely wrong in their determination of extent of injury.  There is seldom such evidence that meets this standard.

If you have a doctor who can support your diagnosis and can say that it was caused by the work incident, then you are usually risking too much by requesting a DD.  DD's come in all shapes and sizes - some are liberal, some conservative; some understand how aggravation of pre-existing injuries are supposed to be compensable, others do not; some work for insurance companies, some do not.  You don't get to select who the DD will be.  The DWC picks the next one off of its list of docs.  So who you get is a crapshoot.  Some are known so well that regular observers of the comp system could tell you what the report says just by seeing the doc's name.

The risk with a DD is that you are a longshot to win your case if the DD does not support you, whether he understands the law or not.  When dealing with a DD on extent, you are asking a doctor to perform a legal function - you are actually allowing the DD to be a judge.  Now I am an attorney, but it would be foolish to let me perform a medical procedure on you, like surgery.  It is just as foolish to risk your future on a doctor who is being asked to perform a legal function.  But if the DD is not involved and you have a doctor that supports you, you are at worst only 50-50.  If there is no real contrary evidence, you are looking good.

The point is that it is wrong to always request a DD to resolve an extent issue.  Most of the time, it is better to pursue your claim without one.  A DD should only be requested if there is no other way to get evidence that supports your extent of injury claim.