Almaraz / Guzman

Home › Workers Compensation Resources › Archive for Almaraz / Guzman
Jul
18
2011
Almaraz / Guzman, Conference, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Permanent Total Disability, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Boot Camp
Boot Camp

The Workers’ Compensation Specialization Boot Camp on July 16 and 17 in Los Angeles was a packed house. 1  If you missed out, there’s another chance to attend on July 30 and 31 in Concord.

If you did attend the seminar in Los Angeles, I promised you a copy of all of the cases cited during the presentation on Permanent Disability.  Here’s the basic outline along with a download link for every case I cited:

  1. Permanent Disability
    1. Cal. Labor Code. Section 4660
    2. LeBoeuf v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.
    3. Costa v. Hardy
    4. Almaraz/Guzman “II”
    5. Guzman “III”
    6. Ogilvie “II”
    7. (Updated 7/29/2011!) [Download not found]
      1. Read a summary of Ogilvie III here!
    8. Argonaut Ins. v. Ind. Acc. Comm (Montana)
  2. Psychiatric Injuries
    1. Cal. Labor Code Section 3208.3
    2. Dept. of Corrections v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia)
  3. Apportionment
    1. Cal. Labor Code Section 4662
    2. Cal. Labor Code Section 4663
    3. Cal. Labor Code Section 4664
    4. Cal. Labor Code Section 3213 – 3213.2
    5. Escobedo v. Marshall’s
    6. Benson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.
    7. Brodie / Welcher
  4. Rating
    1. Blackledge v. Bank of America
    2. Policy & Procedures Manual of the WCAB
  5. (Updated 7/18/2011!) Flash Card Take Away
    1. Please register for a free account with PDRater.com to download this file.
    2. Seriously – free as in free.  There’s no charge, no credit card anything.

  1. Permanent Disability

    1. Cal Labor Code § 4660

    1. Description of disability

    1. 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule

      1. Rebutting the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule

      1. LeBeouf

    1. 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule

      1. Permanent Impairment

      1. Rebutting the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule

      1. Costa/Harding

      1. Almaraz/Guzman II

      1. Guzman “III”

      1. Ogilvie II

  1. Photo courtesy of jumpinjimmyjava [↩]
Sep
24
2010
Almaraz / Guzman, Author, Ogilvie, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , ,
What has two thumbs and loves to hear itself talk? THIS GUY!!!
What has two thumbs and loves to hear itself talk? THIS GUY!!!

There was a great turn out this morning to the “How to Obtain an Accurate PD Rating with the AMA Guides” put on by the Workers’ Compensation Section of the State Bar.  We covered a lot of ground in just two hours, from the DEU perspective presented by Annalisa Faina and Barry Knight entitled “Anatomy of Rating”, to Mark Gearheart’s “Substantial Medical Evidence to Support a Permanent Disability Rating,” and my own presentation on “Litigating Ogilvie.”  There was a lively discussion on the state of Almaraz/Guzman, Blackledge, and Ogilvie. 12

Thanks to everyone who e-mailed me asking for the cases cited during our presentations.  I’ll be uploading them shortly.

Tonight is the “2010 Steve Jimenez Special Recognition Awards” honoring:

  • Lifetime Achievement: The Honorable Pamela Foust (Ret.)
  • Judge of the Year: The Honorable Jorja FrankHon. Jorja Frank
  • Applicant Attorney of the Year: Marc Marcus
  • Defense Attorney of the Year: Michael Marks

If you’re attending tonight, please stop me and say hello!  (I’ve got a name tag and everything)

  1. Lively as in “barely civil” [↩]
  2. I’m kidding! [↩]
Aug
27
2010
Almaraz / Guzman, Author, PDRater

Tagged with , , , , ,
Three doctors is probably just plain excessive. And more than a little creepy.
Three doctors is probably just plain excessive. And more than a little creepy.

My prior record for doctor depositions was three in one month.  This was not at all intentional.  It was probably a number of factors.  I tend to take more doctor depositions than most.1 Almaraz/Guzman issues are usually best addressed during a deposition.  And, lastly it just happened to be an extra busy month.

This week I attended three doctor depositions (two set by myself, one set by a co-defendant).  I’d say that pretty well trumps three in a month.  :)

A special shout-out goes to Doctors Z, J, and C.  Thanks for putting up with me guys.  Also, special thanks to Mr. W, my co-Defendant without whom this wouldn’t have been possible.

  1. Photo courtesy of Little Miss no Name.  Photo editing – all me! [↩]
Aug
19
2010
Almaraz / Guzman, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , ,
The end for Milpitas USD?
The end for Milpitas USD?

Update: Download Milpitas United School District v. WCAB and Guzman, 6th Appellate District Court H034853, ADJ3341185, SJO0254688!

Looks like Milpitas Unified School District v. WCAB and Guzman is here to stay. 1 The 6th Appellate Court has just affirmed the WCAB’s decision in full.

Where does this leave us?  Well, under “Almaraz/Guzman II” we need to get a “strict AMA” and either side can obtain an “Almaraz/Guzman II” opinion from the doctors based upon rebuttal evidence, with the Judge being the final arbiter.

What else does this mean?  I’m probably going to break my personal record for the most doctor depositions in a single month.

Click here for more in depth coverage of Guzman!

  1. Photo courtesy of funkandjazz [↩]
Feb
24
2010
2005 PDRS, Almaraz / Guzman, Workers Compensation Resources

Almarez/Guzman: Full steam ahead
Almarez/Guzman: Full steam ahead

Yesterday the 6th Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal issued a Writ of Review, denied Defendants’ request for a stay, and indicated that the matter would be set for oral argument. 1  If you would rather just read what they have to say, here it goes:

Petitioner’s request for a stay is denied. Petitioner’s request for judicial notice, filed on 10/16/09 is denied. The petition for writ of review is granted as follows: Let a writ of review issue ordering the WCAB to certify & return to this court is official record in Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District & Keenan & Associates, WCAB case No. ADJ3341185 (SJO0254688), not later than 3/25/10. Respondents may file opposition on 3/25/10. Petitioners my reply to the opposition in 20 days after the opposition is filed in this court. The matter will be placed on calendar at a time & place to be specified by court order. Any party desiring oral argument shall so inform this court in writing on 3/25/10 by completing & returning to this court the attached “request for oral argument” form (P, E, WD)

What does this mean for you?  Well, it means at least another four months of Almarez/Guzman II.

The fastest I recall a case going from the granting of a Writ of Review to to Order after oral argument was about four months.  In that case (Rollick) the Court of Appeals had basically already made up their minds about the issues and had allotted each side 10 minutes of argument.  The oral argument in that case took place about four months after the Writ was granted and Order issued almost immediately after argument.  However, the issues presented by Almarez/Guzman II are considerably more intricate.

For more analysis on this decision check out the article on WCExec!

  1. Photo courtesy of jjjohn. [↩]
Sep
4
2009
2005 PDRS, Almaraz / Guzman, AMA Guides, Case Law, Ogilvie, Permanent Partial Disability, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman - lets cut to the chase
Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman - let's cut to the chase

First off, if you haven’t already downloaded Ogilvie II and Almaraz/Guzman II, do so now!

As I mentioned previously, each of these cases is about 50 pages long, so there is clearly no substitute for reading them for yourself.  However, here’s Ogilvie II and Almaraz/Guzman II in five sentences:1

  • Ogilvie v. WCAB II:
    • The WCAB ruled the original Ogilvie (I) formula is still valid.
    • The WCAB appears to have created a right to reopen a case for “individualized proportional earnings loss.”
    • Vocational testimony is not an appropriate way to dispute the DFEC portion of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule.
    • (Bonus Dissent Summary: The lone dissent by Caplane says that vocational testimony should be considered proper rebuttal to an entire permanent disability rating.)
  • Almaraz/Guzman II:
    • The WCAB ruled that a doctor must issue reports within the “four corners” of the AMA Guides 5th Edition to comply with Labor Code Section 4660(c). 2
    • However, either party may obtain rebuttal evidence in the form of supplemental reports and depositions regarding the use of any other chapter, method, or table within the AMA Guides.
    • (Bonus Dissent Summary:  The dissenting opinion from Brass, Caplane, and Moresi says they would affirm their decision in Almaraz/Guzman I.)

What do these cases mean for the practitioner?

  • The WCAB has created a new right to reopen for a higher than expected “individualized proportional earnings loss.”
  • The Ogilvie Mathematical Proof of 18 Point Add-Ons still stands.
  • I see even more doctor depositions in my future.
  • My phone is going to be ringing off the hook tomorrow.
  1. Photo courtesy of Scallop Holden [↩]
  2. Here, the phrase “four corners of the AMA Guides” just means the parties are restricted to the actual text of the AMA Guides and cannot use analogies and evidence from outside the AMA Guides. [↩]
Sep
3
2009
Almaraz / Guzman, Case Law, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , ,
The Board is back!
The Board is back!

Need a FREE sample Ogilvie analysis brief complete with citations?

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board is back with their en banc decisions on Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman after reconsideration. 1  Download the Ogilvie/Almaraz/Guzman decisions all in one place:

Each of these four is about 50 pages.  Read them carefully, there will be a test later.

  1. Photo courtesy of arturodonate [↩]
Jun
27
2009
2005 PDRS, Almaraz / Guzman, AMA Guides, Articles, Case Law, DFEC Rebuttal, Ogilvie, Vocational Rehabilitation, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Always room for guest articles at PDRater!
Always room for guest articles at PDRater!

Emily Tincher has recently provided a vocational expert’s perspective on the Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman decisions.

Have you got an article on workers’ compensation you’d like to see published?  Drop me a line and let me know.1

Thanks Emily!

P.S. For those of who keeping score at home, this is my 200th post!!!  That’s 200 posts in 357 days or roughly a post every 1.7 days.

  1. Photo courtesy of Stephen Cummings [↩]
May
11
2009
2005 PDRS, Almaraz / Guzman, AMA Guides, Ogilvie, PDRater, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Appeal (get it?)
Appeal (get it?)

Thanks to our friends at AppealsBoardReporter.com, we now have access to 22 amicus briefs filed in the Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman cases. 1 In late March 2009 the WCAB granted reconsideration of their recent Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman decisions – and invited the submission of amicus briefs.  You can read and download them here:

Who produced them?  Well, Ogilvie amicus briefs were filed by:

  • Morrow & Morrow
  • International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals
  • The Travelers Companies Inc.
  • Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner
  • California Workers’ Compensation Institute

The Almaraz/Guzman briefs were filed by:

  • California Applicants’ Attorneys Association
  • California Chamber of Commerce-CSAC Excess Insurance Authority
  • County of Los Angeles
  • California Self-Insured Employers Association
  • California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery
  • California Workers’ Compensation Institute
  • Department of Industrial Relations Director John Duncan
  • Employers Direct Insurance Company
  • Phil Walker, Esq.
  • Phil Walker, Judicial Notice Request
  • Protected Insurance Program for Schools
  • Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner
  • Safeway Inc.-The Boeing Co.-Schools Insurance Authority
  • San Diego Schools Joint Powers Authority
  • International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals
  • Morrow & Morrow
  • The Travelers Companies Inc.

After reviewing the above list, I have to wonder: Why doesn’t CAAA have an amicus brief for Ogilvie?  Does anyone know?

  1. Photo courtesy of Black Glenn.  Terrible pun courtesy of me. [↩]
Apr
6
2009
1997 PDRS, 2005 PDRS, Almaraz / Guzman, AMA Guides, DFEC Rebuttal, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
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?

    1. 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.
    2. 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
    3. Any interested party may file an amicus brief no later than May 1, 2009 at 5pm.
      1. Photo courtesy of radiospike photography [↩]
      2. Hence, the “The Thinker” reference above… [↩]