1997 PDRS, 2005 PDRS, Almaraz / Guzman, AMA Guides, DFEC Rebuttal, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Workers Compensation Resources

Ogilvie, Almaraz, & Guzman: Reconsideration Granted! Amicus Briefs Allowed!

Jay Shergill Apr 6, 2009 Tagged with aghazarian, almaraz, almarez, amicus, Amicus Brief, C Duncan, caplane, City And County Of San Francisco, commissioner, Compensation Appeals Board, Compensation Insurance Fund, Concurring Opinions, Crazy Stuff, Department Of Industrial Relations, En Banc, Enviroserve, guzman, Interested Party, Keenan, Kesselring, Majority Opinion, Milpitas Unified School District, new cases, order granting reconsideration, Pdrs, rebut 2005, rebut dfec, rebut pdrs, Rebuttal, recon, Sfo, Sjo, State Compensation Insurance, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Wanda, Wcab, wcab en banc

Need more time to think about Ogilvie, Almaraz, and Guzman? — Need more time to think about Ogilvie, Almaraz/Guzman?

Sometimes even the WCAB needs more time to think.¹

On March 26, 2009, the director of the Department of Industrial Relations, John C. Duncan, issued a letter to the entire Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board asking them to vacate their own decisions and solicit argument and amicus briefs. Here’s a copy, courtesy of WCExec.com, the Letter from Director of DIR to WCAB re: Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman (3/26/2009).

On Monday April 6, 2009 the WCAB issued three Orders Granting Reconsideration and Order Allowing Amicus Briefs (en banc) in Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman. For your review:

What does the Order Granting Reconsideration of Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman mean for you?

Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman are still the law. Despite Commissioner Aghazarian’s two concurring opinions, the WCAB did not issue a stay of either Ogilvie or Almaraz/Guzman.
The WCAB has granted SCIF’s petition for reconsideration in Almaraz, granting reconsideration on their own motion in Guzman, and the parties’ petitions for reconsideration in Ogilvie. They have granted reconsideration on these cases to, “afford us a sufficient opporutnity to study the issues.”²
Any interested party may file an amicus brief no later than May 1, 2009 at 5pm.

Photo courtesy of radiospike photography [↩]
Hence, the “The Thinker” reference above… [↩]

Apr

2009

2005 PDRS, Calculators, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Partial Disability, Technobabble, Website Updates, Workers Compensation Resources

Suggestions for the Ogilvie Calculator

Jay Shergill Apr 1, 2009 Tagged with 2005 schedule, Calculator, California Workers Compensation, En Banc, kitten it, Main Top Header Menu, Permanent Disability, rebut 2005, rebut dfec, rebut pdrs, Wcab, wcab en banc

I was recently sent feedback about the Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal calculator on this website. ¹ Here’s how I’ve incorporated that feedback:

Inputs. The calculator results repeats the inputs with the results. This ensures that the answer provided gives you enough context when showing the calculation to the other side or when you go back to review your file.
Email. You can now e-mail your calculations to yourself.
Links. I’ve added a link to the various Employment Development Department and U.S. Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics inside the calculator itself. It doesn’t automatically obtain the information, but hopefully you will find this helpful.

There are two other issues I’m thinking about:

An easy way to pull up the FEC rank of a particular body part. Its kind of a pain to look up the body part, find the FEC rank, and then enter that into the calculator. I’m thinking ways to simplify this process. This shouldn’t be too bad to write.
Rating using the Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impairment. This one will prove to be a difficult one to write in an intuitive fashion.

How would you change these calculators? What else would you like to see? What do you hate about them? Shoot me an e-mail or leave a comment!

Photo courtesy of biketrouble [↩]

Mar

2009

Calculators, PDRater, Technobabble, Website Updates, Workers Compensation Resources

Calculator Useability Update

Jay Shergill Mar 31, 2009 Tagged with cosmetic changes, reorder, useability changes, website update

You may have noticed a few cosmetic changes in the look of the workers’ compensation calculators. ¹ It turns out that some of the calculators are getting a LOT more use than others.

In order to make them a easier to use, I’ve re-ordered all of the calculators in rough order of popularity. ² Hopefully you’ll find this helpful. Eventually I plan to separate out all of the EAMS related search functions from the actual benefits calculators.
I’ve found that when you click to expand a calculators it would cause the entire page to scroll to the top. I’ve fixed this.

Send me an e-mail and let me know or leave a comment!

Photo courtesy of Sock Monkey Photography [↩]
This change only affects the order in which you see the calculators and has nothing to do with how they work. [↩]

Mar

2009

1997 PDRS, 2005 PDRS, Almaraz / Guzman, Average Weekly Wage, Business, Calculators, COLA, Combined Values Chart, EAMS, Free, Life Pension, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Permanent Total Disability, PHP, SAWW, Subscription Features, Technobabble, Temporary Partial Disability, Temporary Total Disability, Wage Loss, Website Updates, Wordpress, Workers Compensation Resources

New Ogilvie DFEC Rebuttal Calculator feature!

Jay Shergill Mar 28, 2009 Tagged with Calculator, California Workers Compensation, Disability, E Mail, En Banc, kitten it, Main Top Header Menu, new year, rebut 2005, rebut dfec, rebut pdrs, Rebuttal, wcab en banc

Late last week a user asked for a new feature.¹ He wanted to be able to perform the Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal calculation and have the results e-mailed to him.² Well, I built it!³

To e-mail yourself a calculation, perform the calculation as normal. When the website returns your calculation, it will say “E-mail Me!” Just click that button and it will send an e-mail to the address you used to register for this website.

However, here’s the cool part: I’ve installed this new e-mail system into every calculator! ⁴ No more having to copy and paste! Just click one button and your calculation will show up in your inbox!⁵

Although I intend this to be a paid-subscription-only feature, I am going to leave it open for all users while I get some feedback. So, what do you think? Please leave a comment or shoot me an e-mail!

Thanks Dennis! [↩]
Photo courtesy of Vernhart [↩]
Why, what did you do with your Saturday morning? [↩]
I haven’t installed it in some of the EAMS lookup functions [↩]
If you filled in the boxes for Applicant, WCAB #, and File #, it will include this information in your e-mail as well. This is only for your convenience and not a requirement. [↩]

Mar

2009

Business, Free, MySQL, Not Workers Compensation, Open Source, PDRater, PHP, Search Engine Ranking, SEO, Technobabble, Wordpress

WordPress – Not Just For Kids Any More!

Jay Shergill Mar 27, 2009 Tagged with Big Time, Designers, Microsoft, Microsoft Sql Database, Ms Sql, Php Mysql, Sql Microsoft, Sql Servers, Wordpress

A friend of mine owns and operates a number of websites – all of which run on ASP/.NET/MS-SQL servers. He knows what he’s talking about, but he’s fairly dismissive of WordPress, PHP, and MySQL.

All this time I’ve been raving about WordPress, telling him that you can basically do anything with it. I’ve mentioned how easy it is to use, how easy it is to maintain, its open source, how many global corporations use WordPress to build their websites, how its the tool of choice for so many designers, and how huge the WordPress community is.

In the meantime, he’s referring to his millions of rows in his “real-SQL, MicroSoft SQL” database. I believe he’s been stuck thinking of PHP and MySQL as “kiddie” stuff, just not ready for big time.

That is, he’s been dismissive of WordPress until about two months ago. In the last two months other people (SEO consultants, professional designers) have been raving about WordPress to him too.

I think he’s finally coming around.

Mar

2009

2005 PDRS, Calculators, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Technobabble, Workers Compensation Resources

Improve the Ogilvie Calculator!

Jay Shergill Mar 26, 2009 Tagged with Advertising, Banc, Compensation Calculator, Compensation Professionals, Decimal Places, En Banc, Extrapolating, Few Days, Hobbies, Judgment Call, Significant Digits, Variation, Wcab, wcab en banc, Whole Person Impairment, Workers Compensation

Could THIS be the elusive Ogilvie formula?

So, here’s the deal: I want to build the absolute most comprehensive suite of calculators and tools for workers’ compensation professionals. ¹ I also want your help to making them better.

In the last few days several people have sent me questions about the Ogilvie DFEC workers’ compensation calculator:²

Is it possible to get an Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impairment above 100%?
- I believe it might be theoretically possible to achieve an adjusted whole person impairment above 100% using the Ogilvie DFEC formula. I could easily include a small variation on the calculation that would prevent it from exceeding 100, but I have not done so because I wanted to replicate the the formulas set forth in Ogilvie as exactly as possible.
Why can’t I use post-injury earnings of $0.00? What if they have no earnings at all?
- That’s an extremely valid point. If you try to use a post-injury earnings of “zero”, it will cause division by “zero” which is not a mathematically legal operation. Try post-injury earnings of $1.00 or $0.01. Doing so will give you an answer VERY close to what you need. ³
When do you round each calculation when performing the Ogilvie DFEC calculation?
- The WCAB en banc in Ogilvie rounds to three decimal places at one step and to four decimal places at a second step. The only way we know what they actually did is by extrapolating from the examples in the decision – they never actually state “round to four significant digits here, round to three significant digits there.” I have rounded exactly as they did in their examples.
- At the end of the day, there are two ways to perform the Ogilvie DFEC calculation: the exact way the WCAB did it (sometimes four, sometimes three decimal places) and the way they probably intended to do it (four decimal places until the end). I made the judgment call to use the formula as they performed it, warts and all.
- Why did I choose to round as the WCAB did? I think it is more defensible to calculate exactly as the Board did, rather than as I think the Board should have calculated.
How do you put the Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impairment into the rating calculator?
- At this point, you can’t use a different FEC Rank or an Ogilvie DFEC adjustment factor in the 2005 PDRS rating calculator on this site. In order to accomodate this, I would need to either rewrite the entire calculator or write a new calculator. One other possibility is that I could modify the Ogilvie DFEC calculation to provide one extra line of information – where it “runs the FEC numbers backwards.”
- Let’s take this example: Suppose the body part FEC rank is 1 and whole person impairment is 10. The normal FEC adjusted whole person impairment would be 11. Let’s suppose after applying the Ogilvie DFEC formula it turns out you should have an FEC rank of 8 instead. This would give you an Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impariment of 14%. I could write a modification of the current Ogilvie DFEC calculator to put 14% into the FEC Rank chart and look up what whole person impairment you would need with an FEC rank of 1 to arrive at 14%. Would you find this a helpful interim fix? Please let me know by sending me an e-mail.
Jay, why in the world did the Ogilvie DFEC calculator reference “standard disability”? Shouldn’t it say “whole person impairment”?
1. You’re totally correct. I’ve fixed this. Mea culpa.

Here’s my request for your help. In order to make an Ogilvie calculation valid, you need to put in valid post-injury earnings of similarly situated employees. The WCAB in Ogilvie suggests several possible sources:⁴

EDD Labor Market Information Division (LMID):
- www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/
- www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=152
US Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS):
- www.bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm
- www.bls.gov/data/

What do you use for post-injury earnings of similarly situated employees? If I had a better idea where people were looking it is possible that I might be able to automate the inclusion of this informaiton as well. Please drop me a line and let me know. If there is a general consensus, I’ll look into the possiblity of having this informaiton automatically imported from an external website.

Why? Some people have wacky hobbies. Maybe you build hockey arenas out of toothpicks. I build workers’ compensation calculators and give them away for free. If it will put you at ease, I hope to make money from advertising in the future. [↩]
Photo courtesy of nerissa’s ring [↩]
I know it has a less than friendly error message about this. I’ll see what I can do about fixing that. [↩]
I’ve copied the links directly from Ray Frost‘s Ogilvie spreadsheet/calculator. Ray has been kind enough to allow me the use of his extensive work restrictions lists. So, thanks Ray! [↩]

Mar

2009

Author, EAMS, Technobabble, Workers Compensation Resources

EAMS: Rise of the Machines

Jay Shergill Mar 18, 2009 Tagged with Court Clerk, dave v eams, eams is evil, eams is hal, Eams Is The Terminator, evil eams, hal, Half An Hour, Half Hour, humor, Invisible Ink, Jay Vs Eams, Kafkaesque, Rise Of The Machines, Terminator, workers compensation humor

Your request for hearing has been DENIED — Request for hearing DENIED

Tuesday I tried to submit settlement documents for a walk-through in Oakland. ¹ I had prepared the document cover sheet, minutes of hearing, and had everything ready to go. As per procedure, I left the packet with the court clerk and came back about half an hour later.

When I returned the settlement documents were still on the counter, but without any indication of which judge I would be seeking approval from. I was told that the documents had already been signed by the day’s walk-through judge.

That’s when the fun started.

The computer told the clerk that the original documents in front of us had the judge’s signature and that the judge had the file. The documents clearly did not have the judge’s signature. However, since EAMS believed the documents were already approved, it felt (?) I shouldn’t be given the opportunity to walk the documents through. Even more interestingly, the EAMS was telling us that the documents had been approved that very afternoon.

Since I had stamped the documents in, the clerk did not want to return them to me so that I could ask the judge if he had signed the settlement. Mind you, the judge would have had to sign the documents (in invisible ink) in the half hour between the time I dropped off the documents and came back to pick them up. Eventually I was allowed to take the documents with me to ask the judge if he had signed them.

Once before the walk-through judge, I explained that I had no board file because EAMS believed he already had the file and had approved the documents I was handing him. Puzzled, the judge went to investigate whether he had approved the documents that did not have his signature. He returned a few minutes later saying that he did not have the file, he did not recall signing the documents, and that he did not recall signing any documents for myself or the Applicant’s attorney involved. EAMS was adamant that he had signed those documents.

Thankfully everyone in the hearing room was good-natured about the entire thing. The funniest part about the entire situation is that the court clerk, myself, and the judge were made to doubt our own recollection, the documentary evidence in front of us, and sanity because EAMS said so.

If you haven’t seen this already, you should really see this incredibly funny EAMS video.

Photo courtesy of racatumba. [↩]

Mar

2009

Almaraz / Guzman, Author, Business, Calculators, Case Law, COLA, Free, Ogilvie, PDRater, SAWW, Technobabble, Website Updates, Workers Compensation Resources

500 Registered Users!

Jay Shergill Mar 17, 2009 Tagged with 500, almaraz, benson, Beta Testing, Calculator, Compensation Cases, Compensation Professionals, dfec, En Banc, Glasses, guzman, Indy 500, Milestones, online glasses, online glasses review, Pupillary Distance, Rebuttal, sif, Spike, Wcab, Workers Compensation, xyzzx

Wow! 500 registered users!

Last month I mentioned that this website had a record number of new visitors. I honestly thought that was an anomalous one day spike in traffic. Instead we’ve had a sustained increase in new visitors and people signing up to use the workers’ compensation calculators for free.

Since February 13, 2009¹ I’ve enjoyed posting about:

New Important Workers’ Compensation Cases
Two New Calculators
- Ogilvie DFEC Rebuttal Calculator
- XYZZXSJO2 Future Life Pension Rate with COLA/SAWW Increases²
Online Glasses – Reviewed!
PDRater.com Milestones:
- 400 registered users!
- 300 registered users!
- 200 registered users!
- 100 registered users!
- PDRater.com is one year old!
- Relaunch of PDRater.com!

Ever since I relaunched this website I’ve had this idea in the back of my mind that getting to 500 users would be a big deal. There are literally hundreds of workers’ compensation professionals who rely on this website and its calculators to make their lives a little easier. This certainly feels like a big deal to me.

When the 400th user registered. [↩]
I am keeping this calculator in beta testing until I get a little more feedback. If you want to try it out, just drop me a line! [↩]

Mar

2009

Business, Not Workers Compensation

Goggles4U Review, epilogue

Jay Shergill Mar 10, 2009 Tagged with base curvature, cheap glasses, cheap online glasses, cheap prescription glasses, Choices, Current, Curvature, Customer Service, E Mail, Eye Doctor, Eye Prescription, Glasses, Glasses Frames, glasses online, goggle4u review, goggles4u coupon, Independent Confirmation, Medical Professional, online glasses, online prescription glasses, Polychromatic, Prescription Glasses, Prescriptions, Transition

Last week I posted a Goggles4U.com review. ¹ 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.

Photo courtesy of Morningstar Lee [↩]

Mar

2009

2005 PDRS, Almaraz / Guzman, AMA Guides, Ogilvie, PDRater, Workers Compensation Resources

Don’t Believe The Hype: Almaraz/Guzman is the law!

Jay Shergill Mar 9, 2009 Tagged with almaraz, almarez, Binding Precedent, Cal Code Regs, Cal Comp, City Of Long Beach, Comp Cases, Compensation Judges, Compensation Professionals, Decisions, En Banc, guzman, Head In The Sand, Hype, Impairment Rating, Phil Walker, Vocational Experts, Workers Compensation

Guzman II decisions here!

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. ¹ 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.

Photo courtesy of blakeimeson [↩]