I got Chinese take-out on Saturday night. I know I had promised a review of online glasses retailers, but I just had to share this with you. Tune in tomorrow for the GlobalEyeglasses.com review and the day after for the Goggles4U.com review. My fortune cookie had three fortunes in it! ((Original photo courtesy of TheTruthAbout. Photo editing – all me!)) I typically consider this lucky. Saturday… not so much.
Saturday night was February 28th, as in the end of the month. I didn’t notice anyone drawn to me. ((You know – any more than usual.))
Soon is relative, so I guess this could still come true.
This one undoubtedly came true. In the wee hours of Sunday morning an unexpected visitor presented themselves. My typically delightful moo shu paid me a visit in the form of food poisoning.
Anyone interested in some Chinese take-out leftovers?
Get your prescription. When getting your eye prescription, being sure to have your physician provide your “Pupillary Distance.” ((The “Pupilary Distance” is the distance between your two pupils, measured in millimeters.)) I’ve put together a chart at the bottom you can take with you to the doctor’s office.
Measure your glasses. Measure your current glasses using a metric ruler. The most important measurement is going to be “Temple Width.” The “Temple Width” is the overall front width of your glasses.
Choose frames. On the website of your choice, narrow down the available glasses by the “Temple Width.” From there you can narrow down the available choices.
Wait. Both of the websites I ordered glasses from took about two weeks to get the glasses to me.
Double check. Take your new glasses back to your eye doctor. They will have a machine that can check the prescriptions on the lenses.
Last week while Steve was at the Sacramento WCAB he heard about a recent case that held the COLA / SAWW adjustments and increases are calculated based upon the first January 1 following the date of injury. ((COLA = cost of living adjustment.)) ((SAWW = state average weekly wage.))
This case involving SIF (the subsequent injuries fund) is from the San Jose WCAB. The name of the case is “XYZZXSJO2 v. Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund, ADJ 1510738, SJO 0251902”. The name of the Applicant was anonymized to protect their identity. ((I hope to have a scan of this decision for you soon!)) ((David DePaolo of WorkCompCentral.com has graciously allowed me permission to offer you a copy of XYZZXSJO2 for download! Thanks David!))
Thus far the conventional wisdom has been that the COLA/SAWW increases are calculated starting with the first January 1 after life pension gets paid out. This is a tremendous change in the COLA/SAWW calculation of life pension.
Assuming a 1/1/2003 injury at exactly 70% permanent partial disability, there would be 426.5 weeks of permanent disability paid after the permanent and stationary date before the life pension gets paid out. This equates to 8.2 years from the permanent and stationary date that has, thus far, not been taken into account with life pension calculations to date. To put this in perspective, if someone had an injury on 1/1/2003 and became P&S on that same date ((Not likely.)) , the traditional method of calculating the life pension with COLA / SAWW increase would be too low by approximately 44%.
At the moment I’m finalizing a COLA / SAWW life pension 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.
Unfortunately, I don’t have a citation for the 4.7% COLA / SAWW increase, but I believe it to be the offiical average used by the DEU ((Disaiblity Evaluation Unit.)) to calculate commutations of COLA / SAWW increases and adjustments. If you have an official citation or document from the DEU, please drop me a line so I can include that citation here!
I’m out of the office for one lousy day and what happens? A record number of visitors to PDRater.com, that’s what. ((Photo courtesy of Ann Althouse.)) I suppose I should spend more time up at the Santa Rosa WCAB, eh?
On Wednesday February 18, 2009 this website had a record number of individual visitors. On that day I 234 unique visitors. ((The previous record of 180 visitors was set on August 23, 2008.)) In the grand scheme of things, this is a fairly low number of unique visitors to a website.
This sort of website traffic is considered to be very “high quality” as in the number of people from my target demographic comprise the vast majority of those people who actually visit my site.
I have no intention of manufacturing FEC Ranks 9 through 20 for the following reasons:
Maintaining Standards. The entire point of a rating schedule is to allow a standardized method for calculating disability and expressing those disability calculations. If I invented my own FEC Rank system beyond the scheduled 1-8 Ranks, I would essentially be creating my own rating calculation system. I’ve gone to considerable lengths to ensure that the rating strings produced by these permanent disability calculators are as standardized, recognizeable, and universal as possible.
FEC Ranks are Irrelevant. The FEC Rank system is a simplified method of applying DFEC adjustment factors. When you use the FEC Rank of a particular body part to adjust the standard using the charts on pages 2-6 and 2-7 of the 2005 PDRS (permanent disability rating schedule), what you’re really doing is essentially multiplying your standard disability against the FEC adjustment factor associated with the particular FEC Rank for the body part in question. An FEC Rank is only useful for telling you the appropriate FEC adjustment factor to apply to the standard disability. Thus, FEC Ranks are irrelevant and FEC adjustment factors are all important.
Arbitrary FEC Ranks. FEC Rank 1 has an FEC adjustment factor of “1.100”. However, using the OgilvieDFEC rebuttal formula, it is possible to end up with very low FEC adjustment factors. In extreme circumstances it would be possible to have a negative FEC adjustment factor. The only way to resolve this would be to have several possible negative FEC Ranks. Besides being somewhat silly, worrying about additional FEC Ranks ((Both higher and lower than the normal 8)) misses the point. If you’re using the OgilvieDFEC rebuttal formula properly, the result will be a new FEC adjustment factor. If you already have the FEC adjustment factor, you have no need for the FEC Rank!
When I had discussed the impact of Ogilvie earlier, I had pointed out that in some cases the resulting formula will dictate that you use a different FEC Rank than the one indicated by the affected body part. In other cases you will need to use an entirely new FEC adjustment factor. In order to keep the 2005 disability calculator current I will eventually have to create a way for the user to override a body part’s standard FEC Rank and specify a new FEC Rank or their own FEC adjustment factor.
I’m not in any particular rush to develop this feature since Ogilvie seems to require three years of post-injury earnings. I doubt we’re going to see litigation begin in earnest over Ogilvie issues for another 18 to 24 months.
