Discussion: View Thread

WC Def atty challenging a FCE done a a different provider because it relied on DOT physical demand requirements instead of ONET work activity freq of importance citing USDOL no longer recognizes DOT as valid.   I have been asked to do a 2nd opinion FCE.    However I also rely on the DOT as the accepted gold standard by Vic experts for specific physical demands for occupations as opposed to ONET.  The big issue in this case seems to be whether or not the IW can return to his job of injury working as an oilfield floor hand since previous FCE limited work to Medium work and according to Def atty IW is now working as a construction worker and based on Def atty's analysis of ONET freq of importance there is no difference between these two occupations therefore the IW should have the RFC to RTW in his job of injury working as a floor hand.   I haven't received his analysis yet but is my opinion thajt we should first rely on a valid job analysis of the IWs job of injury and compare to a valid job analysis of the IWs current job working as as a construction worker because job specific physical demand requirements are more specific to the issues in this case as opposed to the occupational physical demand requirements listed in the DOT and the work activity frequencies listed in ONET.    Any expert insight is greatly appreciated.  

WC Def atty challenging a FCE done a a different provider because it relied on DOT physical demand requirements instead of ONET work activity freq of importance citing USDOL no longer recognizes DOT as valid.   I have been asked to do a 2nd opinion FCE.    However I also rely on the DOT as the accepted gold standard by Vic experts for specific physical demands for occupations as opposed to ONET.  The big issue in this case seems to be whether or not the IW can return to his job of injury working as an oilfield floor hand since previous FCE limited work to Medium work and according to Def atty IW is now working as a construction worker and based on Def atty's analysis of ONET freq of importance there is no difference between these two occupations therefore the IW should have the RFC to RTW in his job of injury working as a floor hand.   I haven't received his analysis yet but is my opinion thajt we should first rely on a valid job analysis of the IWs job of injury and compare to a valid job analysis of the IWs current job working as as a construction worker because job specific physical demand requirements are more specific to the issues in this case as opposed to the occupational physical demand requirements listed in the DOT and the work activity frequencies listed in ONET.    Any expert insight is greatly appreciated.