Matheson Philosophy on Workplace Safety and Work Injury Evaluation

9 Lessons for Functional Capacity Evaluators - Indergard Court Case

In the recent 2010 Matheson workshop catalog I wrote,

The headline screamed, ‘EEOC Says No OT or PT in FCE’. Without even reading the article, I knew this headline would pave the way for change, despite its sensationalism and inaccuracy. At that very moment, I sensed an opportunity, as well as a major wake-up call, for the industry.

I went on to conclude with these words:

Indergard v. Georgia-Pacific serves as a wonderful learning tool for professional work evaluators who perform ‘functional capacity evaluation’ (FCE). This 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case illustrates how the federal legal system works in the United States – highlighting the weaknesses in the Americans With Disabilities Act, which is clearly flawed despite good intentions. And, it also surfaces the weaknesses in how the FCE is performed differently in various states.

The informal review of Indergard in this presentation, and in the paper below, are intended to address concerns shared by many experienced work evaluators. Included herein are lessons and suggestions that Thinking Evaluators may want to consider. Please keep in mind that the thoughts and reflections in this presentation and document are not intended to be legal advice.

*Please note that the below presentations will not show up in a Google Chrome internet browser. They will work in either Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox.

 

Below is the official court ruling:

Indergard v. Georgia-Pacific serves as a useful training tool for functional capacity evaluators. The evaluators who performed the job analysis and the FCE gave each of us a valuable gift – we thank them for what they endured to help us all learn. The comments in this paper should not be taken as criticism of those that were involved in the case.

- Roy Matheson

Stay in touch with us on: