"In workers' compensation, doctors decide the treatments that are used, which in turn decides what disability benefits are paid," said Rissman. "Some doctors -- in fact, too many doctors -- don't use objective standards in determining what is wrong with a patient and how much disability they should get. So evidence-based medicine, whatever the state in which the doctor is located, is a statutory requirement that they follow and requires certain standards."

Rissman cited Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals as a landmark case for establishing set criteria, but noted that it was just the beginning of the movement, not the final word.

"Daubert essentially says that doctors can't use what's called 'junk science' in determining diagnoses and treatments," said Rissman. "There are a lot of different state statutes around the country that either codified Daubert or have different objective medical evidence-based medicine standards. So Daubert might have been the start, but it has gotten very sophisticated. But there are no programs around the country that are teaching it to lawyers, adjusters, and employers."

After convening for lunch, attendees returned in the afternoon to a program that continued to answer questions by bringing in three highly respected doctors. For instance, the theme of credible science was revisited.

"The adversarial nastiness that takes place in workers' compensation could be done away with if the medical side would restrict itself to scientifically credible health care," said Barth. "Many people say that you can't turn to medical science because for every study that says one thing, another says something completely different. This is a false statement."

Barth supported this assertion by highlighting the accomplishments of Dr. Stan Bigos, who presented on back problems. Bigos was appointed by the federal government in the 1990s to put together guidelines for health care when it came to back complaints. He organized a panel to review the scientific credibility of every individual research study, and then he sorted the studies into what was essentially a group of scientifically credible studies and a group of design-flawed studies. Once sorted, there were no longer disagreements with the science.

"Everything that ended up in the credible 'pile' gave us the same results and complete consistency in the science," said Barth. "For example, the idea that the best option for back pain was surgery went out the window because there was no science to support it. The credible science supported what's called the activity paradigm, which calls for a patient with back pain to become more active rather than withdrawing from it."