You may not want to hear this, but Ogilvie II is probably worse for Defendants than Ogilvie I. 1 Check out page 32:
if within five years of the date of injury it later becomes clear that the employee’s individualized proportional earnings loss is significantly higher or lower than anticipated, a party may seek to reopen the issue of permanent disability by challenging the originally used DFEC adjustment factor.
I think we can expect to see a petition to reopen on any case that settled prior to 2/3/2009. 2
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
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.”
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. [↩]
What would you like to see from this website in the coming year? Please let me know in the comments or send me an e-mail. I already have several (more) new calculators in the pipeline, but I’m always open to ideas.
The Ogilvie mathematical proof has been available for several weeks for peer review. I’ve only received positive feedback.2 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.
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???”1 My first thought was of my favorite quote from Swingers.2 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.
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 45.4Ogilvie 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?5
Get ready to stop paying people to do Ogilvie calculations, recycle your Gearheart/Gerlach handouts, and delete your Frost Excel spreadsheet.1 We’re about to go all “Beautiful Mind.”
Yesterday while at the Oakland WCAB an Applicant’s attorney mentioned he noticed an interesting trend in the Ogilvie formula. 23 He said that whenever he does an Ogilvie calculation for someone with a 100% earnings loss and a modest WPI, the WPI is always increased by 18. 4
I ran a number of test calculations on this theory and it appeared to be right. My calculations show that up to a WPI of 44 the increase appears to always be 18.1, but the last “0.1” always gets rounded down. However, appearing to be right just isn’t good enough for me. And, because I am just truly that nerd, here’s the fully mathematical proof:
Let’s break down the calculations at the heart of Ogilvie:
If you have an Applicant with a 100% post injury earnings loss and a WPI of 44 or less, you should rebut the FEC and arrive at an adjusted WPI that is equal to the original WPI plus 18.1.
Therefore, I propose a new Ogilvie formula that will be easy for anyone to remember:
Step 1: If the injured worker has a 100% earnings loss and a WPI of 44 or less, add 18.1 to the WPI and round down.
Step 2: If the injured worker has less than 100% earnings loss or a WPI of 45 or higher, go to Step 3.
Step 3: For heaven’s sake, just make your life easier and use the calculators here at PDRater.com.
I’ve been working on an easy way to allow a user to look up and quickly insert the FEC rank for the affected body part. I finally got around to building it a few days ago and launched it this morning. Please give it a shot and let me know what you think.
Type in the FEC rank OR click “FEC Rank (1-8)” and click on the injured body part. It will look up the FEC rank and insert it for you.
Type in the “Whole Person Impairment”
Type in the “Post Injury Earnings of Applicant”
Type in the “Post Injury Earnings of Similarly Situated Employees” OR click the link to obtain some information from the EDD Labor Market Information Division (LMID) and US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
If you can think of a way for me to make this calculator even easier, please let me know. 2
