Category: AMA Guides

By Posted on Posted in 2005 PDRS, AMA Guides, Case Law, Ogilvie, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,
If you can use duct tape, you can perform an Ogilvie DFEC analysis in 5 minutes
If you can use duct tape, you can perform an Ogilvie DFEC analysis in 5 minutes

An Ogilvie / DFEC analysis isn’t really difficult, especially when this website has a free Ogilvie / DFEC calculator. ((Photo courtesy of indigotimbre)) The problem comes when you have to prove all the math behind those calculations.  This involves “showing your work.”

The best way to “show your work” is to take the reader through each step of the Ogilvie analysis.  I’ve prepared a sample report (generated using a new service on this website) which provides a clear and easy to understand format for “showing your work.”

The steps are basically this:

  • Step 0:  2005 PDRS rating string
  • Step 1: Post-Injury Earnings of Applicant
  • Step 2: Post-Injury Earnings of Similarly Situated Employees
  • Step 3: Calculate Proportional Earnings Loss
  • Step 4: Calculate Individualized Rating to Loss Ratio
  • Step 5: Compare Individualized Rating to Loss Ratio to range of ratios for the FEC ranks

For those interested, here’s a more detailed explanation of each step in an Ogilvie / DFEC analysis.

When each step of the Ogilvie / DFEC analysis is stated clearly, the reader can see every assumption, step, and perform their own calculations to verify your conclusions.  As long as the parties agree on the numbers used in an Ogilvie / DFEC calculation, they should always arrive at the same result.

Setting forth every single step of your Ogilvie / DFEC analysis lets you to spend less time arguing about the impact of Ogilvie and more time trying to get the case settled.

By Posted on Posted in 2005 PDRS, AMA Guides, Ogilvie, Technobabble, Wage Loss, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Back to the drawing board
Back to the drawing board

DOWNLOAD THE MATHEMATICAL PROOF AS A PDF!

A little while ago William S. Morris, an Applicant’s attorney, told me that the Ogilvie adjustment calculation could be further simplified.  ((Photo courtesy of Dahveed76)) He suggested the following ((I’m paraphrasing here)) :

  1. Earnings Loss ((PIESSE = Post Injury Earnings of Similarly Situated Employees)) ((PIEA = Post Injury Earnings of Applicant))
    1. L = (PIESSE – PIEA) / PIESSE
  2. Individualized Proportional Earnings Loss
    1. = (WPI / L) / 100
  3. DFEC Adjustment Factor
    1. = ([1.81/a] * .1) + 1
    2. = ( (1.81 * .1)/a) + 1
    3. = (.181/a) + 1
    4. = 1 + (.181/a)
  4. Ogilvie DFEC Adjusted Rating
    1. = WPI * DFEC Adjustment Factor
    2. = WPI * (1 + (.181/a) )
    3. = WPI * (1 + (.181 / Individualized Proportional Earnings Loss) )
    4. = WPI * (1 + (.181 / ( (WPI / L) / 100) ) )
    5. = WPI * (1 + (18.1 / ( (WPI / L)  ) )
    6. = WPI * (1 + (18.1 * (L/WPI) ) )
    7. = WPI + (18.1 * L)
  5. Conclusion
    1. If the injured workers’ individualized proportional earnings loss is outside all of the FEC ranks, you may calculate the Ogilvie adjustment by adding (18.1*Earnings Loss) to the WPI.

The only flaw with the proofs offered by William and myself is that they are too exact.  The WCAB in Ogilvie never sets forth the exact process for performing the Ogilvie adjustment calculation – so the only official method involves rounding to different significant figures at different places.  Thus, a calculation performed in strict accordance with the WCAB in Ogilvie and through one of these mathematical proofs would differ very slightly.

What do you think? Leave a comment or drop me a line.

By Posted on Posted in 2005 PDRS, Almaraz / Guzman, AMA Guides, Case Law, Ogilvie, Permanent Partial Disability, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments 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: ((Photo courtesy of Scallop Holden))

  • 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).  ((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.))
    • 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.

By Posted on Posted in 2005 PDRS, AMA Guides, DFEC Rebuttal, Downloads, Free, Ogilvie, PDRater, Technobabble, Workers Compensation Resources 2 Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
lincolnblues
Even this guy can do the Ogilvie adjustment calculation in his head

If you’re using my Ogilvie calculator for situations involving a 100% earnings loss, you’re working too hard.  ((Photo courtesy of lincolnblues))

If you have 100% earnings loss and WPI less than 45, the Ogilvie adjustment formula will always result in WPI + 18.

Not to worry.  I can make Ogilvie even easier:

  1. [download id=”1″].
  2. [download id=”2″]!

The Ogilvie mathematical proof has been available for several weeks for peer review.  I’ve only received positive feedback. ((An anonymous source from the DWC actually called it “cool”!))  The above Ogilvie Adjustment Chart has been testing by myself and other workers’ compensation attorneys, but like everything else on this site is provided subject to all legal disclaimers.

Here’s a peek at what they look like:

Ogilvie Mathematical Proof
Ogilvie Mathematical Proof

Ogilvie Adjustment Chart
Ogilvie Adjustment Chart

By Posted on Posted in 2005 PDRS, AMA Guides, Blogging, Calculators, DFEC Rebuttal, Ogilvie, PDRater, Technobabble, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
I think we can dispense with the caption, just this once...
I think we can dispense with the caption, just this once...

A defense attorney friend of mine called me up yesterday to say (I’m paraphrasing here), “You jackass.  Thanks to your Ogilvie proof every Applicant’s attorney I know is calling me up, gloating, and asking for 18 points on top of the whole person impairment on every case!  Why the hell did you do that???” ((Photo courtesy of giuliomarziale))   My first thought was of my favorite quote from Swingers. ((Just for you Ray!)) What I actually said was something along the lines of:

  • It’s not like CAAA wouldn’t have found out about Ogilvie if it wasn’t for Jay Shergill mentioning it in a blog post.
  • Nothing has changed except that now anyone can perform an Ogilvie adjustment calculation in their head. ((And save $129.99 in the process))
  • Someone was going to prove that Ogilvie adds 18 points to the WPI in virtually all litigated workers’ compensation cases, so it might as well be me.

For the moment, let’s set aside the issue of whether California’s injured workers have gotten a raw deal since SB899.  Suppose there’s an injured worker with a finger injury, stays on temporary disability for two years, and is immediately made permanent and stationary.  If instead they get a 0% WPI, they get nothing.  If they gets a 1% WPI, Ogilvie tells us this person gets a DFEC adjusted WPI of 19%.

Nearly every litigated case involves an extended period of temporary disability and a whole person impairment less than 45. ((Hell, a permanent irreversible coma is only a WPI of 80.))  Ogilvie effectively removes the first 18% permanent partial disability levels.

I really don’t think the WCAB intended this consequence.  Don’t get upset with me – as long as Ogilvie is the law I might as well make Ogilvie calculations easy for you, right? ((Remember, just add 18 to the WPI!))