By Posted on Posted in 2005 PDRS, Downloads, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments
Also not a valid permanent disability rating schedule for 2009
Also not a valid permanent disability rating schedule for 2009

I’ve been getting a lot of questions about the Draft 2009 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule.  There is no 2009 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule.  ((Photo courtesy of wenzday01))

Yes, yes, I know we’re supposed to have a new schedule per 8 CCR 9805, but the proposed draft 2009 PDRS was never approved.

Overall, the draft 2009 Permanent Disability Schedule doesn’t change much from the existing 2005 schedule.  The biggest change is in the application of the FEC rank adjustment.  Instead of increasing permanent disability between 10% and 40%, the proposed FEC rank system would increase permanent disability between 20% and 50%.  Additionally, the proposal suggested juggling the various ranks among the body regions.  If you’re curious about the exact proposed changes, the DWC Newsline gave a really great overview back on May 9, 2008.

Here’s the take-away:

By Posted on Posted in Case Law, Ogilvie, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,
WCAB gives Ogilvie the green light
WCAB gives Ogilvie the green light

Apparently the defense attorney on Bowden v Sunray Termite wrote ex parte to the WCAB requesting the case be declared a significant panel decision.  ((Photo courtesy of adamwilson))

Commissioner Miller’s letter (download below) notes Bowden was a “purely fact driven case” and “is not to be a statement of legal importance to the community.”  Commissioner Miller further points out Significant Panel decisions are citable panel decisions but not binding legal precedent.  ((Even if the defense attorney’s request had been granted Ogilvie, as an en banc decision, would still take precedence over Bowden.))

[download id=”28″]

What does this mean to you?

Ogilvie has not been stayed, so sharpen your #2 pencils and work on your math skills.

By Posted on Posted in Case Law, Ogilvie, PDRater, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , ,
This sign is ALSO not a stay on Ogilvie
This sign is ALSO not a stay on Ogilvie

I’m still getting e-mails suggesting that Bowden v. Sunray Termite is a WCAB Panel decision staying Ogilvie.  ((Photo courtesy of loop_oh))  Thanks to some loyal readers, I now have a copy of this Panel decision:

[download id=”27″]

By Posted on Posted in Case Law, Ogilvie, Vocational Rehabilitation, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , ,
Just a red herring
Just a red herring

In a word, no.  Ogilvie has not been stayed by the WCAB, Court of Appeals, or any other court at this time.  ((Photo courtesy of jypsygen))

A defense attorney is circulating a letter suggesting that he got the Board to agree on Reconsideration to stay the application of Ogilvie on a case until the Supreme Court decides on the issue.

First, let me preface by saying the Board might theoretically decide to not apply the DFEC rebuttal analysis under Ogilvie for any number of reasons:

  • Perhaps the defense vocational expert witness was particularly persuasive
  • Perhaps the injured worker was a terrible witness
  • Perhaps the Board noted a particularly disproportionate effect of Ogilvie
  • Perhaps there were a lot of “motivational” issues for the injured worker
  • Perhaps the injury was less than 3 years old

Secondly, even if the Board found a way to decline to apply the DFEC rebuttal analysis under Ogilvie in one circumstance, this does not stay or overrule Ogilvie.  We would need to see something from either the Court of Appeals or another ((Third!!!)) en banc Ogilvie decision from the WCAB.

Thirdly, while I have not seen the documentation to prove it, I have learned the Board declined to apply the DFEC rebuttal analysis under Ogilvie due to some technical issue not having much to do with the actual Ogilvie case.

So, to recap – Ogilvie has not been stayed.  If someone claims otherwise, ignore them until they produce the case.  And when you see it… send me a copy!

By Posted on Posted in Average Weekly Wage, Case Law, COLA, Life Pension, Permanent Total Disability, SAWW, Temporary Total Disability, Workers Compensation Resources 1 Comment Tagged with , , , , , , ,
Double dip done right
Double dip done right

Some commentators have suggested that the recent Duncan v. WCAB (X.S.) case creates a “double dip” for injured workers entitled to permanent total disability benefits.  ((Photo courtey of alex012))  While I would take issue with much of that commentary, I would agree that permanent total disability benefits are affected by changes in the state average weekly wage twice under Duncan v. WCAB (X.S.).  Of the four benefits in California workers’ compensation system that are affected by changes in the SAWW, only permanent total disability benefits are affected twice.

It took the patient guidance of a very smart friend to help me to understand how this works:

  • When determining the proper starting rate for a permanent total disability case, you must first turn to Cal. Labor Code § 4453(a)(10).  This statute dictates that the limits (as in the statutory minimum and statutory maximum limits) are to be increased by the increase in the state average weekly wage (or SAWW).
  • However, according to Cal. Labor Code § 4659(c) as interpreted by Duncan v. WCAB (X.S.), the benefit rates themselves are then increased by the increase in the state average weekly wage (or SAWW).

Is it “double dipping” to have both the upper/lower limits and benefit rates increased by the SAWW?

Perhaps, but that’s what the two statutes say and what the Court of Appeals has decided.