we provide a wide range of specialized orthopedic services to address various musculoskeletal conditions and injuries.
we provide a wide range of specialized orthopedic services to address various musculoskeletal conditions and injuries.
Category
Ankle
Arthritis
Arthroscopy
Chest
Elbow
EMGs/NCVs
Foot
Fractures
General Medical Conditions
General Orthopedic Conditions
Hand
Hip
Knee
Laboratory Test Results
Miscellaneous
MRI
Orthopedic Surgical Procedures
Pelvis
Shoulder
Spine
Cervical
Thoracic
Lumbar
Wrist
X-rays
Sent to attorneys August 18, 2026.
A short note on medial branch blocks (MBBs), the diagnostic injection used to prove that a facet joint at the back of the spine is generating a patient’s pain. The facet joints are the paired joints on either side of each vertebral level. Each one is supplied by tiny nerve twigs called medial branches, which come off the dorsal ramus of the spinal nerve — the branch that turns backward as soon as the nerve exits the spine. Because every facet joint has a dual nerve supply from the medial branch of its own level and the medial branch of the level above, at least two branches must be blocked to test a single joint. A well-performed MBB that gives strong short-term relief is what qualifies a patient for radiofrequency ablation as the follow-on treatment.
The levels that carry the load. In the neck, C5-6 and C6-7 are the most common axial pain generators after whiplash-type injuries; C2-3 is the classic source of headache of cervical origin. In the low back, L4-5 and L5-S1 do most of the work, particularly after hyperextension or axial-loading injuries. Thoracic facet pain exists but is uncommon in litigation. When a records reviewer sees medial branch blocks documented at these levels, that is not shotgun treatment — that is the anatomically sensible workup.
The headache piece. The C2-3 facet is innervated by the third occipital nerve, a specialized branch of the C3 dorsal ramus, and it is a well-recognized source of occipital and upper-neck headaches after a neck injury. C3-4 can also contribute; C1-2 headaches come from a different mechanism and are worked up differently. When a patient reports post-collision headaches that start at the base of the skull and spread over the crown, a third occipital nerve/C2-3 diagnostic block is the correct anatomic path — not a generic migraine workup.
I hope you found this interesting.
Questions or comments about today’s educational update, or a topic you would like us to address in a future edition? Contact us through our website: OrthOpinions
F. Allen Johnston, MD
Louisiana Orthopedic Institute
Baton Rouge
(225) 751-6666 Office
(225) 270-0000 Cell
Sent to attorneys August 14, 2026.
Two spine-pain patterns get collapsed in medical records into “the pain is going down the leg, so it must be a pinched nerve.” They are not the same thing, and the distinction changes what the record is actually saying.
Radicular pain arises from irritation or inflammation of a spinal nerve root, the point where a nerve exits the spinal canal. Patients typically describe it as sharp, electric, or lancinating, projected along a narrow band into the arm or leg (roughly a stripe tracing that nerve’s territory). Somatic referred pain arises from deep spinal structures such as the disc annulus, the facet joint, or the supporting ligaments. It is typically deep, dull, and poorly localized, felt in the buttock, groin, or thigh without following a specific nerve distribution. The working definitions most spine physicians use are the ones set out in Bogduk’s 2009 paper in Pain, which the International Association for the Study of Pain has adopted as its terminology. Radiculopathy is a third and separate term: it refers to objective nerve-root dysfunction (weakness, loss of a reflex, sensory loss in a defined dermatome) and can exist with or without pain.
Why this matters for causation analysis. A patient whose only complaint after a rear-end collision is deep, aching buttock or posterior-thigh pain may well have a real injury to a disc or facet joint, but the pain pattern alone does not support a diagnosis of a compressed nerve root, and an MRI showing an incidental disc bulge does not close the loop. Conversely, a patient with true radicular pain in a defined nerve distribution, positive tension signs on examination, and imaging that correlates at the same level presents a much stronger anatomic story. When a treating physician, an IME reviewer, or a records summary uses “radiculopathy,” “radicular pain,” and “referred pain” interchangeably, the causation opinion tends to blur along with the vocabulary. Asking a witness to define the term they used, and to point to the specific examination finding that supports it, usually clarifies more than any additional imaging would.
Educational only, not case-specific, and not legal or medical advice for any particular matter.
F. Allen Johnston, MD
Louisiana Orthopedic Institute
Baton Rouge
(225) 751-6666 Office
(225) 270-0000 Cell
Sent to attorneys August 13, 2026.
A short note on a pattern that comes up regularly in orthopaedic records review: the patient’s history and examination are consistent with a real spine problem, symptoms are provoked by movement or by everyday load, and the MRI report reads as normal, minor, or degenerative-only. That combination invites the oversimplification that a “normal” or minimally abnormal MRI means there is no injury and the complaints are exaggerated. It does not.
A standard MRI is a static, unloaded snapshot. It is acquired with the patient lying flat (supine) and at rest, the spine not carrying the person’s body weight, not extended, not rotated, and not being asked to do anything mechanical during the scan. Under those specific conditions, some real anatomic problems are less visible than they behave in daily life. Peer-reviewed work on axial-loaded MRI and upright / positional MRI has documented, in symptomatic patients, measurable reductions in the dural sac cross-sectional area and, at some levels, additional narrowing of the neural foramen that were not present on the same patient’s relaxed supine images. Willén and Danielson’s 2001 Spine paper and the earlier Danielson 1998 Acta Radiologica series established this in the workup of lumbar stenosis; a 2020 weight-bearing MRI series (Nordberg and colleagues) additionally reported that lumbar disc herniations were on average larger in standing than in supine position and more often in contact with the exiting nerve root; Michelini’s 2018 Acta Biomedica review summarizes the broader literature; Kanno’s 2011 Spine paper reported that the change in dural sac area between unloaded and loaded imaging correlated with clinical symptom severity. These are not fringe findings. They are also not a claim that every twisting or lifting movement causes unseen nerve compression, and they are not an argument that routine MRI is invalid. Routine supine MRI remains the first-line study and is diagnostically sufficient in most cases.
Separately, some symptom-provoking maneuvers rest on established physiology rather than on new imaging techniques. Coughing, sneezing, straining, and other Valsalva maneuvers briefly raise pressure inside the spinal canal, which is why they can worsen radicular pain when a nerve root is already being contacted or irritated (Dejerine’s sign is the century-old clinical description). Extension and rotation of the spine physiologically narrow the neural foramen at the moment of the movement. These are recognized clinical patterns captured on physical examination (straight-leg raise, Spurling’s maneuver, extension provocation); they do not, by themselves, prove nerve compression at rest, and they are not something a routine MRI records during the maneuver. What they do provide is real information about how the patient’s spine behaves under load, which is not information the resting supine MRI is designed to give.
The practical point for records review is a narrow one. When the clinical picture is credible, when the examination documents movement- or load-provoked symptoms, and when the routine MRI reads as minor or discordant, dynamic or intermittent pathology is one possibility that deserves consideration. Not a conclusion to be drawn, but an alternative to a reflexive “the MRI was normal, so nothing is really wrong.” In selected cases the appropriate next step in the medical record is a documented provocative physical examination and, where clinically indicated and locally available, an axial-loaded, flexion-extension, or upright MRI. In many cases the routine study will remain sufficient. The point is that a static supine MRI is a snapshot of one position at rest, a good one and usually the right one, but a snapshot, and its limitations, not the patient’s honesty, are what a thoughtful records review should weigh when the imaging and the clinical picture seem to disagree.
Educational only, not case-specific, and not legal or medical advice for any particular matter.
F. Allen Johnston, MD
Louisiana Orthopedic Institute
Baton Rouge
(225) 751-6666 Office
(225) 270-0000 Cell
Sent to attorneys August 12, 2026.
A short note from my practice on something that comes up often in orthopaedic records review.
An MRI obtained within a few weeks of a soft tissue spine injury and an MRI obtained six months later are not interchangeable studies, and the difference matters whenever imaging is being used to support or contest causation. In the acute window, fluid-sensitive sequences (T2 and STIR) can show edema in paraspinal muscle, interspinous ligaments, facet capsules, or vertebral marrow, sometimes with small effusions or signal changes that indicate a recent injury. These acute findings tend to fade over weeks to a few months as the tissues heal, and by six months the same segment may read as “unremarkable” on a routine study while the patient still has real symptoms. A disc herniation itself also changes on imaging over time. Systematic reviews of the natural history of lumbar disc herniation report that spontaneous resorption most often occurs within roughly three to six months, with extrusions and sequestrations regressing more reliably than protrusions or bulges.
The practical consequence is that timing has to be part of the argument, not a footnote to it. An MRI performed four to six weeks after an event is the study most likely to capture acute markers that a late study may no longer show, and a normal late MRI does not by itself prove there was never an acute injury. On the other side, a chronic imaging appearance with disc desiccation, endplate osteophytes, and multilevel degenerative change does not, by itself, tell you whether a specific event aggravated a preexisting condition. Correlation with prior imaging, the documented symptom timeline, and the physical examination is what supports or weakens the inference. When only one MRI exists in a file, its date relative to the incident is one of the most important pieces of information in the record.
Educational only, not case-specific, and not legal or medical advice for any particular matter.
F. Allen Johnston, MD
Louisiana Orthopedic Institute
Baton Rouge
(225) 751-6666 Office