Subscribe via E-mail

Your email:

Follow Matheson!

Posts by category

Who Are We?

Latest Posts

Favorite Links & Blogs

Occ Rehab Photos

Functional Testing Equip.

Matheson Philosophy on Workplace Safety and Work Injury Evaluation

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Compliance with ADAAA when Writing a JA within a Disability System

Posted on Wed, Jul 06, 2011 @ 11:59 AM
  
  
  
  
Add to delicious  delicious  
  
I am working on our September webinar that I find very interesting. (Note: We are taking a break for the month of August. Sign up for email reminders about these webinars). This case reveals the federal court's thinking on the Department of Labor's Dictionary of Occupational Titles. As with all of the cases we examine, we will peer through the glasses of the "Thinking Evaluator". The piece I am thinking of adding to the discussion is my thinking on the issue of Frequency as it relates to known physical demands and physical abilities (the job and the human).


The EEOC's interpreation of the ADAAA magnifies the importance of using a true metric, not Occasional, Frequent or Constant, when linking physical demands to essential functions. As with many things in life, the quandry occurs at the crossroads of compliance with the ADAAA (job analysis for return-to-work same job, same employer; job analysis for Offer of Alternative Employment as a function of Reasonable Accommodation) while also writing a job analysis within a disability system (state, union, federal, ERISA).

dol

photo source: www.dol.gov

The metric of the JAR (job analysis report) has to serve both masters: a measured metric with pounds, inches, number of repetitions for the ADAAA, but Department of Labor terminology for most disability-focused systems.

Have you experienced difficulty with juggling these two metrics when performing a Job Analysis Report?

How did you reconcile the two?

We would love to know your thoughts!

Roy Matheson

P.S. Our webinar on July 6 "Baker v. Barnhart, Social Security Commissioner" was very exciting. It was about a complicated "who-didn't-do-it" federal court case. It actually reads like a mystery novel of clues and missed opportunities to solve a puzzle. The conclusion leaves room for a sequel in the form of the evaluator making statements to the federal district court that should be questioned while the lone dissenting judge on the Court of Appeals panel sees issues that others don't see. There is a minimal fee of $10 to download it if you weren't able to attend live. Visit the website at www.roymatheson.com/free-webinars (All webinars, unless noted otherwise, are free to attend live.)

Stay in touch with us on:

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Roy, I think this is such a culprit for understanding physical demands. Through my training in ergonomics, I learned very early on that you cannot separate the physical demand (e.g. lifting, reaching, throwing) from its multiplier, which are frequency, intensity and duration. Using "occasional", 0-33% is just so large that it makes absolutely no sense. The strain on the body is truly different whether someone lifts a 20 lb weight 5 x during the day, vs. 2 hours in a row. Still, both will be occasional!! 
 
My vocational rehab friends want me to use the DOT system. I don't think it is specific enough. I use it because they have to, but every time I write a JA, I put so much qualitative and quantitative information that the DOT system use becomes kind of moot. I really need to use my clinical knowledge and judgment in order to determine whether a person can do this or that through comparison with the JA. 
 
I actually wrote a blog earlier last year on frequency and its impact on RTW determination.  
 
Thanks for asking!!
Posted @ Wednesday, July 06, 2011 12:47 PM by Sonia Paquette
I agree, the DOT language is for the most part, far too vague. In our practice, we use the classification "Infrequently," meaning 1-5% of the time. Also, in our reports, we tend to be quite specific as far as spelling out exactly how long a person demonstrated the safe ability to sit, stand, or walk, and we describe exactly how much a person demonstrated they could safely lift, carry, push, pull. It is a tough thing, because you want to speak the language of the readers of your report, in order to give useful information, it is necessary to be far more specific than the terminology calls for.
Posted @ Friday, July 15, 2011 10:11 AM by Pam Moore
We are having the same type of issues and have come across a table (with no references)that uses repetitions/time frame for frequency as opposed to total time alone. Have you heard of this? 
 
Max
Posted @ Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:47 PM by max
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics