Sounds like a very thorough discussion above. One thing I would add to Jm's last post is to clarify the rules of the game: we have resisted the temptation to play with the official definitions of Sedentary, Light, Medium, Heavy, Very Heavy, Never, Occasional, Frequent and Constant. Those definitions are based on the book upon which the DOT, the SCO and the COJ are based: the Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs. Some states have played with the defintions but I think that is an unwise move. The hightest level of our work is at the federal level: we should play by those rules.

As a side note: we have added several physical demands (static standing, for example) in response to a request for higher utility. But I have reservations about using this expanded terminology...I am reconsidering.

A small point to keep in mind regarding the timers in the software: Evaluator judgment always has to be applied to Timer data. A timer indicating that the person stood for 60 minutes says nothing about his full-day ability. The next question is always, "Why was the timer stopped at 60 minutes?". Did the evaluator stop the standing? Was the evaluee at a tolerance end-point for standing?

If the evaluee showed no signs of end-point of tolerance for standing, then his standing ability is greater than 60 minutes. The Thinking Evaluator now has to determine the tolerance to report, knowing that 60 minutes is the low end of tolernce range, not the end-point.

TX Jim for speedy reply. Confirms I'm still in the ball park on this one!!!
F

Fiona,

Good to hear back from you. I do not think an evaluee's cardiovascular conditioning and matial handling capabilities HAVE to match. I do think that for safety reasons, someones cardiovascular capacity ought be no less than their lifting capacity. I also do not have a problem, inherently, with someone's cardiovascular capacity exceeding their PDC based upon a lifting evaluation (there are many ways to attain/maintain a "good" cardiovascular capacity).

I do not think you are missing something, based upon the example you gave me, and hopefully we can continue working towards the big picture of the link between cardiovascular and material handling PDC issues. I guess the bottom line is, there does not have to be a link between the two, as far as effort or RPDR.

Hi Jim,
Just to clarify...are you indicating that the client's MET capacity and material handling capacity should end up in the same PDC category?? I struggle with this as I find that my client's MET level (using the treadmill test) frequently exceed their material handling capacity. As an example, the last FCE I performed, the client's material handling ability fell into the sedentary range while her MET level at 5.9 fell into the Medium range. As she had had a neck fusion and significant soft tissue injuries to her shoulders/ upper back, I was not surprised by her limitation in material handling. I was however surprised by the MET level she achieved when calculated. I'm wondering if I'm missing something...can't think what so any help appreciated.
Finola

I believe that when it comes to determining what PDC a person or job falls into, safety requires us to make sure that the cardiac capacity matches the material handling requirements. That is why Dr. Matheson linked MET demands with material handling-not neccessarily positional tolerances. The example I mentioned (a wharehouse manager that spent most of his day behind a desk but had to go lift a box that weighted 100 lbs. 4x day) would be determined to fall in the Heavy PDC-not a Sedentary PDC. It would be unsafe to say it was Sedentary-because of the Heavy lifting. There may be a reference to a link between positional tolerances and PDC (a soccer referee running back and forth on the field but not lifting anything significant), but most jobs require some form of material handling and not running-that is why I would rely more upon material handling to determine PDC than positional tolerance requirements. As far as RMA teaching a link between PDC and timer values, I am unaware that was being taught. I hope I was able to help in some way.

So if the person demonstrates the ability to stand/walk for 4-6 hours during the FCE then is that considered Light PDC? Does that satisfy the majority of the day requirement from the DOT? My understanding is that if you use the timers in the software and it comes out that they can stand for 4-6 hours (with lifting 20lbs occasionally) that they could be placed in the Light PDC.

Thanks for the response also!

I am unaware of any direct link between timer values and a classification for work rating. The only indication in the DOT regarding physical demand classificaions that I am ware of states;

1. that Sedentary work "involves sitting most of the time".
2. Light work "requires walking or standing to a significant degree."

I believe that these elusive factors led to Dr. Matheson's work on assigning a MET's demand level for PDC's. These values can be found labled on the back side of the score sheets for the Spinal and Hand Function Sorts. Using the Matheson system, this also allows a corelation between cardiovascular capacity, material handling and Sorts. Thus, we are all compairing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. To insert a correlation to standing and a PDC does not neccessarily follow. What if a wharehouse manager spent most of his day behind a desk but had to go lift a box that weighted 100 lbs. 4x day? Sedentary or Heavy?

As far as the vocational counselor stating that Occasional and Frequent capacities regarding different positional tolerances do not simultaneously exist in workplaces, I am at a loss. Where they got a "seldom" category, I am aslo at a loss. Perhaps the best route to go would be to sit down with the counseor and establish a common vocabulary on these terms and use those terms in your reports. Perhaps the counselor just needs a little guidance in these areas as well.