Workers Compensation Calculator
Workers' Compensation Calculator

I had an interesting e-mail exchange with a friend (and fellow workers’ compensation professional) the other day. ((Photo courtesy of Street Fly JZ))

We were discussing the impacts of Ogilvie on 2005 schedule ratings.  He had asked me whether I intended to update the 2005 permanent disability rating calculator to include FEC Ranks after the scheduled 8.  I believe he had suggested FEC Ranks 9 through 20.

I have no intention of manufacturing FEC Ranks 9 through 20 for the following reasons:

  • Maintaining Standards. The entire point of a rating schedule is to allow a standardized method for calculating disability and expressing those disability calculations.   If I invented my own FEC Rank system beyond the scheduled 1-8 Ranks, I would essentially be creating my own rating calculation system.  I’ve gone to considerable lengths to ensure that the rating strings produced by these permanent disability calculators are as standardized, recognizeable, and universal as possible.
  • FEC Ranks are Irrelevant. The FEC Rank system is a simplified method of applying DFEC adjustment factors.  When you use the FEC Rank of a particular body part to adjust the standard using the charts on pages 2-6 and 2-7 of the 2005 PDRS (permanent disability rating schedule), what you’re really doing is essentially multiplying your standard disability against the FEC adjustment factor associated with the particular FEC Rank for the body part in question.  An FEC Rank is only useful for telling you the appropriate FEC adjustment factor to apply to the standard disability.  Thus, FEC Ranks are irrelevant and FEC adjustment factors are all important.
  • Arbitrary FEC Ranks. FEC Rank 1 has an FEC adjustment factor of “1.100”.  However, using the Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal formula, it is possible to end up with very low FEC adjustment factors.  In extreme circumstances it would be possible to have a negative FEC adjustment factor.  The only way to resolve this would be to have several possible negative FEC Ranks.  Besides being somewhat silly, worrying about additional FEC Ranks ((Both higher and lower than the normal 8)) misses the point.  If you’re using the Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal formula properly, the result will be a new FEC adjustment factor.  If you already have the FEC adjustment factor, you have no need for the FEC Rank!

When I had discussed the impact of Ogilvie earlier, I had pointed out that in some cases the resulting formula will dictate that you use a different FEC Rank than the one indicated by the affected body part.  In other cases you will need to use an entirely new FEC adjustment factor.  In order to keep the 2005 disability calculator current I will eventually have to create a way for the user to override a body part’s standard FEC Rank and specify a new FEC Rank or their own FEC adjustment factor.

I’m not in any particular rush to develop this feature since Ogilvie seems to require three years of post-injury earnings.  I doubt we’re going to see litigation begin in earnest over Ogilvie issues for another 18 to 24 months.

1955 Packard 400
1955 Packard 400

February has been a wacky month.  And, on Friday February 13th the 400th user registered for this website.  ((Photo courtesy of atxbill)) Since the 300th registered user, quite a lot has happened:

So Many Calclators, So Little Time
So Many Calclators, So Little Time

After some additional testing and feedback, I have launched the Ogilvie Calculator aka DFEC Calculator aka Diminished Future Earning Capacity Calculator. ((Photo courtesy of teclasorg.))

To all of my friendly beta-testers:  Thank you!

So, what are you waiting for?  Signing up for this website is totally free and takes 30 seconds.  Log in, give it a whirl and let me know what you think.

California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District
California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District

The First Appellate District of the Court of Appeal of the State of California has affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board in Benson v. WCAB and the Permanente Medical Group, affirmed (2/10/2009).  The Court of Appeals held, in relevant part, that “[t]he Wilkinson doctrine is inconsistent with the apportionment reforms enacted by Senate Bill No. 899.”

The basic upshot is that barring “limited circumstances” each distinct industrial injury will require its own Award.

First Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman, now Benson?  Its been an exciting two weeks to be a Workers’ Compensation attorney.

Office of the Clerk
Office of the Clerk

A modern hacker #1
A modern hacker #1

I launched the Ogilvie DFEC Rebuttal Calculator on Saturday morning to a select group of beta-testers.  ((By “select group” I mean anyone who asked me if they could help.)) When I upgraded a person’s access to the website they had no problem seeing the workers’ compensation calculator.

Unfortunately, not one of them was able to actually use the thing.  Last night my wife suggests the problem might be, “maybe they are using a different version or its not refreshed or something”?

And you know what?  She was right.  My wife, the hacker. ((Photo courtesy of gutter.))

I’ve written several protections into these calculators to insulate my users from having to deal with problems or bugs from newly installed code.  I would much rather a user sees nothing than get a wrong answer.  And nothing is exactly what my users saw.  I had remembered to allow my beta testers to see the Ogilvie DFEC Rebuttal Calculator – but forgot to give them access to calculator.

So, the beta-test period will continue for another day or two while I await feedback from my users.

If you’d like to see what the Ogilvie DFEC Rebuttal Calculator looks like or want to try to use it, just sign up for free and shoot me an e-mail asking for access.