State-by-State Use of AMA GuidesEditor’s Note: This table was last updated on July 1, 2019. Copyright 2019 LexisNexis. All rights reserved. This table is reprinted fromOccupational Injuries and Illnesses (LexisNexis).AMA Guides, 6th EditionAMA Guides, 5th EditionAMA Guides, 4th EditionAMA Guides, 3rd Edition RevisedState-specific guide used insteadState14 states10 states6 states2 states16 states (although 15 states sayAMA Guides may be Ala. Admin. Code §480-5-5.35Impairment RatingGuideAlaska6thAlaska Stat. §23.30.190, AlaskaAdmin. Code tit. 8 §45.122(b)Ala. Admin. Code §480-5-5-.35 states thatthe AMA Guides, 4thed. shall be therecommended guide8 Alaska Admin. Code§ 45.122(b) presumesthat AMA Guidesaddress injury. AlaskaStat. § 23.30.190(d)provides that newedition is to be adoptedby board within 90days of the last day ofthe month when thenew edition ispublished.Arizona6thAriz. Admin. Code §23-1044; § 23-1065;Rule R20-5-113(B) ofthe Workers’CompensationPractice andProcedureAriz. Admin. Code §R20-5-113B providesthat physician shouldrate according to mostrecent edition of AMAGuides.

StateStatute/CodeCommentArkansasEditionused4thArk. Work. Comp.Commission Rule 34California5thCal. Lab. Code §4660; 8 Cal. CodeRegs. § 9805Pursuant to A.C.A. §11-9-519, Rule 34provides that AMAGuides 4th ed. shall beused, exclusive of anysections that refer topain and exclusive ofstraight leg raising orrange of motion tests,when making physicalor anatomicalimpairment ratings tothe spine.Cal. Lab. Code § 4660and 8 Cal. Code Regs.§ 9805 (passed as partof SB 899), eff. 1/1/05for all cases,regardless of date ofinjury, require use ofAMA Guides 5th ed. forevaluations and ratingsof permanent disability.Colorado3rdRevisedColo. Rev. Stat. § 842-101, § 8-42-107Colo. Revised Stat. §§8-42-101 and 8-42-107provide for use of AMAGuides 3rd ed. revised.ConnecticutStateSpecificConn. Gen. Stat. §31-308Generally, PD ratingsare state scheduled,pursuant to Ct. Gen.Stat. § 31-308. Fornon-scheduledconditions, AMAGuides are persuasivebut not presumptive.See, e.g., Safford v.Brookway, 262 Conn.526, 816 A.2d 556(2003).

StateEditionusedStatespecificStatute/CodeComment19 Del. C. §§ 2325,2326FloridaStatespecificFla. Stat. § 440.15;Fla. Admin. Code §69L-7.604Generally, PD ratingsare state scheduled,pursuant to 19 Del. C.§ 2326. For nonscheduled conditions,AMA Guides arepersuasive but notpresumptive. 19 Del. C.§ 2325. AMA Guides5th recently utilizedand reviewed.Abrahams v. ChryslerGroup, LLC, 44 A.3d921 (Del. 2012).Fla. Stat. § 440.15 andFla. Admin. Code §69L-7.604 require useof Florida UniformPermanent ImpairmentRating Schedule.Georgia5thGa. Code § 34-9263(d)Ga. Code § 34-9263(d) (adopted as of7/1/01) provides thatpercentages ofdisability shall bebased on AMA Guides5th.Hawaii5thHaw. Admin. Rule12-10-21(a)Haw. Admin. Rule 1210-21(a) provides thatAMA Guides, and anyother guides deemedappropriate by directormay be used todetermine level ofdisability. AMA Guides5th adopted in 2002.Delaware

CodeCommentIdaho Code § 72-4246th820 Ill. Rev. Stat. §305/8.1bIdaho Code § 72-424states that evaluation(rating) of permanentimpairment is amedical appraisal ofthe nature and extentof the injury or diseaseas it affects an injuredemployee’s personalefficiency in theactivities of daily living,such as self-care,communication, normalliving postures,ambulation, elevation,traveling, andnonspecializedactivities of bodilymembers. No specificmention of AMAGuides. AMA Guidesare given weight, butare not binding. Soto v.Simplot, 126 Idaho546, 887 P. 2d 1043,(1994).Effective Sept. 1, 2011,820 ILCS 305/8.1brequires the "mostcurrent edition" of theAMA Guides to beused by the physicianin determining the levelof impairment [see2011 Illinois House Bill1698]. Prior to thatdate, the Guides couldbe considered.Cropmate v. IndustrialCommission, 313 Ill.App. 3d 290, 728N.E.2d 841 (2000).

d. Code § 22-3-310Iowa5thIowa Admin. Code §876-2.4(85); IowaCode § 85.34(2)(a)(s)Kansas6thK.S.A. § 44-510(d);K.S.A. § 44-510eInd. Code § 22-3-3-10makes no reference toAMA Guides. However,latest edition of Guidesmay be used toevaluate nonscheduledimpairment. Dial XAutomated Equipmentv. Caskey, 826 N.E.2d642 (2005).Iowa Admin. Code §876-2.4(85) adoptsAMA Guides 5th ed. asa guide for determiningall conditions listed inIowa Code §85.34(2)(a)-(s). AMAGuides createpresumptive value ofimpairment that may beovercome bypresentation of othermedical opinion ormedical guides or othermaterial evidence.K.S.A. §§ 44–510d and44–510e provide thatfor injuries occurring onor after 1/1/2015, theevaluation ofpermanent impairmentshall be based uponthe AMA Guides 6thEd. In the Johnsoncase [see § 111.03],the Kansas Court ofAppeals held the use ofthe 6th Ed.Unconstitutional.Review has beenaccepted.Indiana

StateStatute/CodeCommentKentuckyEditionused5thKY Rev. Stat. Ann.§§ 342.0011 and342.730Louisiana6thLa. Rev. Stat. Ann. §23:1221Maine4thMe. Rev. Stat. tit. 39A § 153; Code ofMaine Rules 90-351007 § 6.Maryland4thMd. Admin. Code, tit.14 § 09.04.09 and.02; Md. Lab. & Empl.Code § 9-721House Bill 38 (2010 KYH.B. 38), enacted bythe Kentuckylegislature and signedby the Governor onApril 8, 2010, amends,inter alia, KY Rev. Stat.§§ 342.0011(37) and342.730 to retain andrequire the use of theFifth Edition of theAMA Guides.LA Rev. Stat. Ann. §23:1221(4)(q) providesthat no benefits shallbe awarded unless thepercentage ofanatomical loss of useor amputation is asestablished in the mostrecent edition of theAMA Guides.Me. Rev. Stat., tit. 39-A§ 153, para 8, andCode of Maine Rules90-351-006 § 6 providethat permanentimpairment shall bedetermined by AMAGuides, 4th ed.Md. Admin. Code, tit.14 § 09.04.09 providesthat AMA Guides 4thed. are incorporated byreference and thatphysicians must useformat and numericalratings set forththerein.

StateEditionusedMassachusetts 5thStatute/CodeCommentAnn. Laws ofMass., ch. 152, §§35 and 36MichiganStatespecificMich. Admin. CodeRev. § 418.361MinnesotaStatespecificMinn. Stat. §176.105; Minn.Admin. Code §5223.0010MississippiStatespecificMiss. Code Ann. §71-3-17MissouriStatespecificMo. Rev. Stat. §287.190Montana6thMont. Code Ann.§§ 39-71116(27)(a), 39-71711(1)(b)ALM, Ch. 152 §§ 35 and36 provide that levels ofimpairment shall bedetermined inaccordance with AMAGuides. Edition notspecified.No statutory mention ofAMA Guides. They maybe considered. Cane v.Michigan Beverage Co.,11 MIWCLR (LRP) 1163,1998 MIWCLR (LRP)LEXIS 155 (1998).Minn. Stat. § 176.015requires commissioner oflabor and industry toestablish permanentdisability schedule. Minn.Admin. Code §5223.0010 incorporatesAMA Guides, 2nd ed., forreference only.Miss. Code Ann. § 71-317 does not mentionAMA Guides in schedule.Physicians may use AMAGuides to make findings.No mention of AMAGuides in statutoryschedule. Legislaturerejected mandatory useof AMA Guides in 2004.Mont. Code Ann. § 3971-711(1)(b) providesthat impairment ratingsmust be based on the 6thed. of AMA Guides.

b. Rev. Stat. Ann.§ 48-121Nevada5thNeb. Rev. Stat. §616C.110NewHampshire5thNH Rev. Stat. Ann. §281-A:32; N.H.Admin. Rules, Labor508.01(d)New JerseyStatespecificNJ Stat. Ann. §34:15-12Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §48-121 does notmention Guides inschedule. Case lawstates Guides may beconsidered, but neednot be followed.Neb. Rev. Stat. §616C.110(a) requiresuse of AMA Guides,5th ed. Subdiv. (b)requires use of 6thedition within 18months of publication.NH Rev. Stat. Ann. §281-A:32; N.H. Admin.Rules, Labor 508.01(d)specified “most recentedition” legislation inJuly 2008 deleted“most recent” languageand substituted the 5thedition. An exceptionexists, however, forworkers who achievedMMI between January1 and June 25, 2008.They will be evaluatedby the 6th edition.NJ Stat. Ann. § 34:1512 does not mentionAMA Guides inschedule. Judgedeterminesnonscheduleddisabilities on basis ofmedical evidence.Nebraska

StateEditionused6thStatute/CodeCommentNM Stat. Ann. § 521-24New YorkStatespecificNew York CLSWork Comp Law §15North CarolinaStatespecificNC Gen. Stats. §97-31North Dakota6thND Cent. Code §65-05-12.2, para. 5OhioStatespecificOH Rev. Code §4123.57NM Stat. Ann. § 52-1-24provides that most recentedition of AMA Guidesshall be used todetermine whether thereis impairment. NM Stat.Ann. § 52-1-26.4provides that the level isto be determined byother factors and by theweight of medicalevidence.NY must use theschedule of the NewYork State Workers’Compensation Board. Itdoes not follow AMAGuides.North Carolina uses stateguides as presented inthe NC Workers’Compensation Manual.ND Cent. Code § 65-0512.2, para 5 requires useof AMA Guides 6th.OH Rev. Code § 4123.57does not make referenceto AMA Guides. Althoughuse of AMA Guides is notmandatory, physiciansmay use them to maketheir findings. Beginning1-1-2002, the Bureauhas advised examiningphysicians to use theAMA Guides 5th.New Mexico

StateEditionused6thStatute/CodeComment85A Okl. St. § 45(c)Oregon3rdRevisedORS § 656.21485A Okl. St. § 45(c)provides thatphysicians shall onlyevaluate impairment inaccordance with thecurrent edition of AMAGuides in effect at thetime of the injury.ORS § 656.214requires "impairment"to be determined inaccordance with thestandards providedunder ORS § 656.726,expressed as apercentage of thewhole person. Or.Admin. R. 436-035-007provides additionalprinciples based, inlarge part, on the AMAGuides 3rd Ed. (1990).Pennsylvania6thOklahomaSection 306(a.2) of thestate’s Workers’Compensation Act [77P.S. § 511.3], nowrequires physicians toapply the methodologyset forth in “the 6thedition” of the AMAGuides [see Protzdecision by PASupreme Court, §124.04, below].

StateStatute/CodeCommentRhode IslandEditionused6thRI Gen. Laws §§28-29-2 and 28-3318SouthCarolinaStatespecificSC Code Ann. §§42-9-10 and 42-920; SC Code Regs.§ 67-1101SouthDakota6thSD Codified Law62-1-1.2Tennessee6thTenn. Code Ann. §50-6-102RI Gen. Laws §§ 28-292((3)(ii) and 28-3318(c)(i) require use ofAMA Guides 6th Ed.SC Code Regs. §§ 42-910 and 42-9-20 providestate schedule ofdisabilities. SC CodeRegs. § 67-011 providesthat unscheduleddisabilities may bedetermined by AMAGuides, edition notspecified, or otheraccepted medicalauthority. It’s recognizedthat the medicalcommunity generallyuses the AMA Guides,and the findings basedon them are generallyaccepted. See, e.g.,Whetstone v. FederalMogul, 2003 SC Work.Comp. LEXIS 907.Eff. 7-1-2013, SDCodified Law 62-1-1.2requires use of AMAGuides, 6th ed.Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6102 provides for the useof AMA Guides 6th ed.Note that the edition ofthe AMA Guides in effecton the date employee isinjured is the edition thatshall be applicable to theclaim.

StateEditionused4thStatute/CodeCommentTex. Lab. CodeAnn. § 408.124;Tex. Admin. Codetit. 28 §130.1UtahStatespecificUtah Admin. Rule612-300-9Vermont5thVt. Stat. Ann. tit.21, § 648VirginiaStatespecificVa. Code § 6.5.2503Washington5thWash. Rev. CodeAnn. § 51.32.080and Wash. Admin.Code § 296-202010Tex. Lab. Code §408.125 provides thatcommissioner may adoptAMA Guides, 4th ed. 28T.A.C. § 130.1(c)(2)(B)(i)adopts AMA Guides, 4thed. for required use byevaluating physicians.See informal workingdraft rule for 28 T.A.C. §130.1.Utah Admin. Rule 300-9provides that anyimpairments not listed inRule 34A-2-412 or the2002 Utah ImpairmentGuide shall be evaluatedin accordance with theAMA Guides, 5th ed.Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, §648 requires use of the5th edition of AMAGuides.AMA Guides notmentioned in statutes orregulations. However,Guides are frequentlyused by physicians; theirreports followed by thecourts.Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §51.32.080(3)(a) andWash. Admin. Code §296-20-2010(e) requireuse of a nationallyrecognized medicalstandard or guide, withspecific mention of AMAGuides as appropriate.AMA Guides aregenerally employed inevaluating impairments.Texas

StateEditionused4thStatute/CodeCommentW. Va. Code § 234-6. 85 W. Va.Code Stat. Reg. §16-4WisconsinStatespecificWis. Adm. CodeDWD §§ 80.32,80.33; Wis. Stat. §102.44,Commission RuleWKC-7761Wyoming6thWyo. Stat. § 27-14405W. Va. Code § 23-4-6does not specificallymention AMA Guides.Commission Rule 85 W.Va. Code Stat. Reg. §16-4 requires use ofAMA Guides, 4th ed. In asplit decision, theSupreme Court ofAppeals held that theCommission did not havethe power to require useof the AMA Guides.Repass v. Workers’Comp. Div., 212 W. Va.86, 569 S.E.2d 162(2002). Nevertheless,evaluation reports areroutinely sent to theCommissioner’s Officefor review to determine ifthe rating physiciancomplied with the AMAguidelines. WamplerFood, Inc. v. Workers’Comp. Div., 602 S.E.2d805, 828-829 (2004)(concurring opinion).Wis. Adm. Code DWD §§80.32, 80.33 and Wis.Stat. § 102.44 do notmention AMA Guides.Commission Rule WKC7761 specificallyprovides that AMAGuides may beconsulted, but are not tobe the basis forevaluation.Wyo. Stat. § 27-14405(g) requires use ofmost recent edition ofAMA Guides.West Virginia

Jul 01, 2019 · AMA Guides, 6th Edition 14 states AMA Guides, 5th Edition 10 states AMA Guides, 4th Edition 6 states AMA Guides, 3rd Edition Revised 2 states State-specific guide used instead 16 states (although 15 states say AMA Guides may be consulted) State Edition used Statute/Code Comment Al