Letters Written by Navy Doctors About Certain

¶ … letters written by Navy doctors about certain cases regarding injuries to Navy personnel have an important impact on how the cases are decided. This is a worthy topic because when Navy personnel are injured they are eligible to file for worker's compensation under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA); when their petitions are accepted and funds are forthcoming, the cost of paying the injured Navy employee is paid for out of pubic taxpayer money. But this is only part of the reason why this article is worthy; according to the authors the Department of the Navy "…typically leads all other Services in total chargeback" (Hammett, et al., 2012, p. 17).

The hypothesis offered in the article was that there "…was no association between the claimant's age and the category of the case" (Hammett, 19). It was rejected by the findings. It was also explained that when Navy doctors have intervened early in a case before the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCPs), the case was often decided in favor of the injured Navy person. Because there are "very few" other federal agencies make doctors available to advocate for injured federal employees, the Navy advocacy presented by doctors has been a big success in that sense.

Dependent and Independent Variables

The independent variables in this article include: the claimant's age, gender, and the wage grade type. The dependent variables include: the kind of injury or illness that is present; the date the case was presented to the Navy physician; the date the case was returned to the ICPA; the recommendation by the physician and the final decision.

Method for Selecting Participants

The authors carefully, epidemiologically studied a group of 325 cases already having been presented to the Navy Injury Compensation Program; from those they "excluded 40" for various reasons and ended up studying 285 cases (albeit 40 from 325 doesn't result in 285).

Particular biases found in the Study

There was a "selection bias" in that the Navy administrators that review the applications for worker's compensation (Navy Injury Compensation Program Administrators, ICPAs) had already "noticed something unusual or which required further clarification" from a doctor to either back up the claim or refute it. In that bias one might expect the Navy to have turned down the requests but some 41% of the cases (most of which involved hearing loss) were approved.

Statistical Testing Procedures

Employing Excel and SPSS version 15.0, the authors used "k statistic" to compare the level of agreement between the doctor's opinion and what the final claim turned out to be; then, using the "z-test," the researchers sought to determine if there was a statistical difference "…between the study population's acceptance rate" and the rate in the entire Navy acceptance rate for worker's compensation cases.

Were there Ethical Concerns?

By the very fact that the Navy doctors' letters brought out private medical facts about Navy personal, there are potentially ethical flags raised due to the privacy issues involved. This is not to say that ethical barriers were crossed by the researchers, just that the potential was there.