Last week I posted a Goggles4U.com review. ((Photo courtesy of Morningstar Lee)) My review was favorable despite having received glasses that didn’t really work for me. It just so happens, according to my eye doctor, that some people are more sensitive to the “Base Curvature.” I happen to be one of those people and there’s no way either I or Goggles4U could have known that. The bottom line is that I received glasses with the exact prescription I specified- you can’t ask more than that.
After trying out this pair of glasses for a week I notified Goggles4U customer service that I was too sensitive to the “Base Curvature.” They responded immediately and gave me a code to order a new pair. I placed the order on 2/27/2009, sent them an e-mail specifying a comfortable range for the Base Curvature. The new glasses arrived on 3/7/2009.
These new glasses, with transition/polychromatic lenses, are great. I haven’t had any problems with them at all. I will still take them back to my eye doctor to confirm, because I think any review would be incomplete without an independent confirmation from a medical professional.
In end sum, I would recommend Goggles4U without reservation. Check out my prior review (now updated!) for the complete review and a Goggles4U coupon.
There are numerous workers’ compensation professionals who are incredibly unhappy with Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman. Vocational experts are unhappy with Ogilvie, and somewhat hopeful with Almaraz/Guzman. Impairment rating specialists are not happy with Ogilvie or Almaraz/Guzman. These people may be unhappy with these new cases, but at least they’re starting to adapt.
As Julius Young of WorkCompZone.com just reported, some people are dealing with Almaraz/Guzman by putting on “webinars.” Phil Walker and Christopher Brigham have each announced “webinars.” According to Walker’s promotional e-mail, he charges $2,000.00 to appear for a one day seminar – and now he’s giving it away for free.
People will try to convince you that Almaraz/Guzman is not the law or “just” a WCAB decision. Do not believe these people. Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman are both en banc cases.
En banc decisions of the Appeals Board are binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and workers’
compensation judges. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10341; City of Long Beach v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 298, 313, fn. 5 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 109, 120, fn. 5]; Gee v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1425, fn. 6 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 236, 239, fn. 6]; see also Gov. Code, § 11425.60(b).)
Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman are binding precedent on judges and the WCAB itself. Don’t believe the hype and don’t stick your head in the sand. ((Photo courtesy of blakeimeson)) If you argue it is not the law or not binding precedent, you will lose. Yes, these cases may be appealed and may even be overturned.
I think it likely they will be appealled and highly unlikely they will be overturned.
I’ve just finished the COLA / SAWW future life pension rate calculator to determine what the future life pension rates are assuming a COLA / SAWW increase of 4.7% per year. If you’re interested in becoming a beta tester for this COLA / SAWW calculator for life pension increases, please drop me a line and ask for access. ((If you have already helped me out as a beta tester, you already have access to this calculator.))
Please keep in mind that this is not a life pension with SAWW / COLA increase commutation calculator. The actuarial math involved in performing that calculation is … intense.
As an interesting side note, this week I saw my very first DEU commutation of a life pension with COLA increase. Unlike the typical commutations everyone receives from the DEU, this commutation calculation was devoid of the actual methodology used. I was pretty disappointed to find this out.
No matter! Help beta test the new calculator by dropping me a line. After you’ve given it a whirl, let me know what you think.
At the end of January I was fortunate enough to witness more security shenanigans.
A man in line behind me took off all metal from his person and placed it in the provided gray plastic bin. Here’s a summary of the exchange between this gentleman and the security guard:
Security: Sir, you’re going to have to take off your belt.
Man: My belt buckle is metal. I took it off, see? There’s no metal in my belt.
Security: That doesn’t matter, sir. Please take off your belt.
Man: But, there’s no metal in it.
Security: Sir, you’re going to need to put your belt through the metal detector.
The man finally took off his belt…
I have several problems with this ((imaginary)) “security procedure.”
It is irrational and absurd.
This system encourages security guards to be lazy and unobservant, encouraging the hiring of unsophisticated or untrained security guards.
This system places too much importance on the value of x-ray machines.
Let’s take this point by point, shall we?
First, when challenged to provide any rationale for their demands, the security staff resorts to argumentum ad verecundiam. ((Latin argument for “appeal to authority” aka “I have a badge so I must be right” aka “‘Cause I said so, that’s why.”)) There’s no reason why a non-metal belt buckle or, heaven forbid a piece of paper, needs to be fed into the x-ray machine. They’re not security risks.
Second, the current system allows the security guards to insist all detachable belongings be fed into the x-ray machine. ((Don’t forget to put your right to privacy in that bin. After all, you don’t have anything to hide from Big Brother, do you?)) ((For a while they actually required the removal of shoes too. Taking your shoes off at the airport is bad enough. But at the Oakland state building???)) The current system essentially removes the incentive for hiring trained, competent, or intelligent staff. And, really, why should they? A mannequin with a sign around its neck could instruct everyone to remove all belongings.
Finally, the current system allows all the security guards at the Oakland state building to place too much importance on the x-ray machines. Once you’ve placed your belongings ((And dignity! Don’t forget your dignity! Don’t worry, after a couple of times through this system it will be small enough to fit comfortably between your cell phone and belt buckle.)) in the plastic bin, you aren’t given a second glance. What happens if someone decides to conceal a dangerous non-metalic object on their person? These security guards believe that paper should be x-rayed! I’m supposed to trust in their powers of keen observation?
Can you tell I’m frustrated with the security situation at the Oakland WCAB?
A few months ago someone e-mailed me this video clip about an attorney struggling with EAMS. My thanks go out to Matthew Brueckner of the Law Office of Matthew Brueckner for putting this together.
