Late last week a user asked for a new feature. ((Thanks Dennis!)) He wanted to be able to perform the Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal calculation and have the results e-mailed to him. ((Photo courtesy of Vernhart)) Well, I built it! ((Why, what did you do with your Saturday morning?))
To e-mail yourself a calculation, perform the calculation as normal. When the website returns your calculation, it will say “E-mail Me!” Just click that button and it will send an e-mail to the address you used to register for this website.
However, here’s the cool part: I’ve installed this new e-mail system into every calculator! ((I haven’t installed it in some of the EAMS lookup functions)) No more having to copy and paste! Just click one button and your calculation will show up in your inbox! ((If you filled in the boxes for Applicant, WCAB #, and File #, it will include this information in your e-mail as well. This is only for your convenience and not a requirement.))
Although I intend this to be a paid-subscription-only feature, I am going to leave it open for all users while I get some feedback. So, what do you think? Please leave a comment or shoot me an e-mail!
So, here’s the deal: I want to build the absolute most comprehensive suite of calculators and tools for workers’ compensation professionals. ((Why? Some people have wacky hobbies. Maybe you build hockey arenas out of toothpicks. I build workers’ compensation calculators and give them away for free. If it will put you at ease, I hope to make money from advertising in the future.)) I also want your help to making them better.
Is it possible to get an Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impairment above 100%?
I believe it mightbe theoretically possible to achieve an adjusted whole person impairment above 100% using the Ogilvie DFEC formula. I could easily include a small variation on the calculation that would prevent it from exceeding 100, but I have not done so because I wanted to replicate the the formulas set forth in Ogilvie as exactly as possible.
Why can’t I use post-injury earnings of $0.00? What if they have no earnings at all?
That’s an extremely valid point. If you try to use a post-injury earnings of “zero”, it will cause division by “zero” which is not a mathematically legal operation. Try post-injury earnings of $1.00 or $0.01. Doing so will give you an answer VERY close to what you need. ((I know it has a less than friendly error message about this. I’ll see what I can do about fixing that.))
The WCAB en banc in Ogilvie rounds to three decimal places at one step and to four decimal places at a second step. The only way we know what they actually did is by extrapolating from the examples in the decision – they never actually state “round to four significant digits here, round to three significant digits there.” I have rounded exactly as they did in their examples.
At the end of the day, there are two ways to perform the Ogilvie DFEC calculation: the exact way the WCAB did it (sometimes four, sometimes three decimal places) and the way they probably intended to do it (four decimal places until the end). I made the judgment call to use the formula as they performed it, warts and all.
Why did I choose to round as the WCAB did? I think it is more defensible to calculate exactly as the Board did, rather than as I think the Board should have calculated.
How do you put the Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impairment into the rating calculator?
At this point, you can’t use a different FEC Rank or an Ogilvie DFEC adjustment factor in the 2005 PDRS rating calculator on this site. In order to accomodate this, I would need to either rewrite the entire calculator or write a new calculator. One other possibility is that I could modify the Ogilvie DFEC calculation to provide one extra line of information – where it “runs the FEC numbers backwards.”
Let’s take this example: Suppose the body part FEC rank is 1 and whole person impairment is 10. The normal FEC adjusted whole person impairment would be 11. Let’s suppose after applying the Ogilvie DFEC formula it turns out you should have an FEC rank of 8 instead. This would give you an Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impariment of 14%. I could write a modification of the current Ogilvie DFEC calculator to put 14% into the FEC Rank chart and look up what whole person impairment you would need with an FEC rank of 1 to arrive at 14%. Would you find this a helpful interim fix? Please let me know by sending me an e-mail.
Jay, why in the world did the Ogilvie DFEC calculator reference “standard disability”? Shouldn’t it say “whole person impairment”?
You’re totally correct. I’ve fixed this. Mea culpa.
Here’s my request for your help. In order to make an Ogilvie calculation valid, you need to put in valid post-injury earnings of similarly situated employees. The WCAB in Ogilvie suggests several possible sources: ((I’ve copied the links directly from Ray Frost‘s Ogilvie spreadsheet/calculator. Ray has been kind enough to allow me the use of his extensive work restrictions lists. So, thanks Ray!))
What do you use for post-injury earnings of similarly situated employees? If I had a better idea where people were looking it is possible that I might be able to automate the inclusion of this informaiton as well. Please drop me a line and let me know. If there is a general consensus, I’ll look into the possiblity of having this informaiton automatically imported from an external website.
Last month I mentioned that this website had a record number of new visitors. I honestly thought that was an anomalous one day spike in traffic. Instead we’ve had a sustained increase in new visitors and people signing up to use the workers’ compensation calculators for free.
Ever since I relaunched this website I’ve had this idea in the back of my mind that getting to 500 users would be a big deal. There are literally hundreds of workers’ compensation professionals who rely on this website and its calculators to make their lives a little easier. This certainly feels like a big deal to me.
California Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District
Just when you thought things couldn’t get any crazier in workers’ compensation than Ogilvie, Almaraz/Guzman, Benson, and XyzzxSJO2. Yesterday I found out that on April 7, 2009 the case of Smith v. WCAB (California Youth Authority) is on calendar for oral argument. As with Almaraz/Guzman, Smith v. WCAB dealt with similar legal issues across two particular workers’ compensation cases. In case you missed it, here’s the court of appeal decision:
Smith involved an informal denial of medical treatment without a formal petition to terminate medical care under L.C. 4607, after an award of permanent disability. Eight years after Smith’s award, SCIF refused to authorize epidural injections. Smith’s attorney sought utilization review, Smith was reexamined by the AME who said the injections were necessary to relieve from the effects of the industrial injury. Although SCIF then authorized the injections without the need for a hearing, Smith’s attorney sought fees under L.C. 4607.
The WCJ denied Smith’s attorney’s petition for fess since there was no formal petition to terminated medical care. The WCAB denied reconsideration on the grounds that SCIF’s was not denying all medical treatment.
Amar is substantially similar to Smith, except that in Amar the workers’ compensation judge took the extra step of opining that SCIF’s denial of medical treatment was made in good faith, not unreasonable, and not improper.
However, the 2nd Appellate Court reversed the WCAB in Smith and Amar, stating in relevant part:
“We see no difference when a carrier informally denies some of the treatment that is a necessary part of medical care previously awarded. This is tantamount to a petition to deny medical care even though the carrier continues to provide treatment for some of applicant’s medical care.”
“Insurance carriers who fail to provide previously awarded medical care may not avoid attorney fees to successful applicants’ attorneys through the expedient of an informal denial, even when they do so in good faith.”
I would love to watch the oral argument on this case – but Los Angeles is a bit of a hike for me. ((I last watched oral argument on the Mt. Diablo Unified School District v. WCAB (Rollick) case back on 8/5/2008. It was particularly interesting for me since I was familiar with the applicant attorney, defense attorney, and facts of that case. If nothing else, its always fun to watch judges get snarky.)) I am very very interested to see how this case shakes out.
There are numerous workers’ compensation professionals who are incredibly unhappy with Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman. Vocational experts are unhappy with Ogilvie, and somewhat hopeful with Almaraz/Guzman. Impairment rating specialists are not happy with Ogilvie or Almaraz/Guzman. These people may be unhappy with these new cases, but at least they’re starting to adapt.
As Julius Young of WorkCompZone.com just reported, some people are dealing with Almaraz/Guzman by putting on “webinars.” Phil Walker and Christopher Brigham have each announced “webinars.” According to Walker’s promotional e-mail, he charges $2,000.00 to appear for a one day seminar – and now he’s giving it away for free.
People will try to convince you that Almaraz/Guzman is not the law or “just” a WCAB decision. Do not believe these people. Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman are both en banc cases.
En banc decisions of the Appeals Board are binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and workers’
compensation judges. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10341; City of Long Beach v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 298, 313, fn. 5 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 109, 120, fn. 5]; Gee v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1425, fn. 6 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 236, 239, fn. 6]; see also Gov. Code, § 11425.60(b).)
Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman are binding precedent on judges and the WCAB itself. Don’t believe the hype and don’t stick your head in the sand. ((Photo courtesy of blakeimeson)) If you argue it is not the law or not binding precedent, you will lose. Yes, these cases may be appealed and may even be overturned.
I think it likely they will be appealled and highly unlikely they will be overturned.
