I was waiting on two attorneys walking through a settlement last week while at the Oakland Board. Applicant’s counsel had added some unusual language. ((Photo courtesy of Joriel “Joz” Jimenez)) The Judge read it aloud to the hearing room:
You’re probably just here to download the latest workers’ compensation case about the Cost of Living Adjustment and State Average Weekly Wage increases. ((Photo courtesy of Sister72)) ((I refuse to apologize for that pun.)) I’m not going to hold you in suspense – here’s the download link:
[download id=”22″]
Obviously, you need to read the entire decision for yourself. Here’s my oversimplification of the case:
Whenever the injured worker is due life pension payments for injuries on or after 1/1/2003, you calculate those benefits, whenever they are due, by increasing them according to the yearly increases in the state average weekly wage starting on 1/1/2004.
Still having trouble understanding the impact of this case? Well, you could try my XYZZXSJO2 calculator to tell you what the life pension rate should be during a given year. (Remember, this just tells you the rate – it is not a commutation calculator. These are still in the works).
There’s a lot of conflicting information about what Judge’s are requiring to making a finding of a DFEC rebuttal under Ogilvie v. City and County of S.F.. ((Photo courtesy of eliaspunch)) The Board in Ogilvie II is explicit that all you need is post-injury earnings information for the injured worker and similarly situated employees and “simple mathematical calculations with that wage data” using a “non-complex formula.” ((Ogilvie II, p1-2.))
Unfortunately, calling a process “simple” and “non-complex” doesn’t necessarily make it so. Apparently some Judges are requiring some additional showing beyond wage data and “simple calculations.”
What are Judges in your area requiring?
Just wage data and calculations? ((Perhaps just a print-out from PDRater? ;) ))