I’ve been working to develop calculators and search engines that are easier to use, easier to understand, and make them available to everyone for less than my competitors. One benefit to doing it all myself is that I can innovate faster than anyone else. For instance, my wildly popular Ogilvie calculator was available to beta testers just days after the Ogilvie case came out.
But, this new calculator is something entirely new. Tantalized? Titilated? Tremulous?
It is strongly encouraged you take the EAMS survey
The Division of Workers’ Compensation has posted a link to an EAMS survey. I noticed a lot of fliers around the Oakland District office of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board for this survey in the last few weeks.
Having taken the survey, I’m not optimistic its going to do anyone any good. My problem with the survey is the inherent question bias.
Several of the survey questions deal with the availability and efficacy of EAMS training resources. Take it from someone who actually designs software user interfaces – if people don’t like the user interface or the way your software works, they will either not use it or try to find ways around it. The only viable solution is to design a system that doesn’t need a lot of training and explanation.
This is really shows the engineering perspective on the problem. Once engineers have designed the system, its up to the user to read the manual and figure it all out. The problem is not sufficient education, training, and understanding. People are not suddenly going toembrace EAMS because now they understand how it works.
While its more work to comb through open ended responses from users, at least those answers will be more representative of their opinions. Take the final question, for example: “Please identify the top 3 improvements that you would like to see in EAMS . Please choose three and rank them in order of priority.” Your only choices are:
Completing the OCR forms (formatting issues)
Completing the OCR forms (ambiguity re: required information)
Completing the OCR forms (technical issues)
Document processing times at the WCAB offices
WCAB clerks’ lack of knowledge regarding EAMS
Availability of EAMS information and documents when appearing at the WCAB for hearings.
Procedural inconsistencies amongst WCAB offices
Too much paper
Too few forms available online
Cover sheet / Separator Sheet
Limited availability of EAMS Access for external users
Limited amount of information available on public search
Assistance with EAMS forms from DWC call center
Other
This can’t possibly be an exhaustive list of user concerns with EAMS. What other EAMS related issues do you perceive?
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.
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))
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!))
