Category: Workers Compensation Resources

By Posted on Posted in Calculators, Case Law, Downloads, Free, PDRater, Technobabble, Website Updates, Workers Compensation Resources Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb
5
2009
Whats the WCAB doing NOW???
What's the WCAB doing NOW???

UPDATE 9/3/2009:  Download the new en banc Ogilvie II and Almaraz/Guzman II decisions here!

Need a FREE sample Ogilvie analysis brief complete with citations?

Some crazy stuff has happened in the last two days.  1 Two big en banc decisions were just handed down from the WCAB. Here they are, hot off the presses and ready for downloading:

Of the two cases, I enjoyed Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco much more.  This case describes to what extent the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule may be rebutted2 and how one might go about doing this.

Pages 22 through 32 are basically nothing but math. 3  These pages detail the information and methodology necessary to rebut the DFEC portion of the 2005 Schedule.

Last night I wrote a prototype calculator which will allow you to determine whether you may or may not be able to rebut the DFEC portion of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule.  This calculator would only perform the DFEC rebuttal calculations suggested in the majority opinion, since this is now the law of the land.  My plan is to test it this weekend and launch it Monday.

However, if anyone is interested in helping me test it, I would appreciate the help.  Just drop me a line and I’ll give you the link as soon as its ready.

In the meantime, if you want to crunch the numbers yourself (or follow along with the WCAB in Ogilvie), you will probably find Table A and Table B page 1-7 of the 2005 PDRS to be very helpful.

FYI, there are a lot of “footnotes” in Ogilvie that reference various online documents or websites.  I’ve downloaded a copy or provided a screenshot of each of these pages for your reference:

  1. Photo courtesy of Kyle Kesselring [↩]
  2. Basically just the DFEC portion. [↩]
  3. Yay! [↩]

By Posted on Posted in 1997 PDRS, Calculators, Free, Multiple Disabilities Table, PDRater, Workers Compensation Resources Tagged with , , , , , ,
Jan
14
2009
Multiple Disabilities Table
Multiple Disabilities Table, easy, no?

Right after “workers’ compensation calculator” and “permanent disability calculator,” the top search term for people coming to this website is “multiple disabilities table.”

If you want to combine multiple disabilities for injuries before 2005,1 you can:

  1. After 2005, you may need to use the Combined Values Chart from the 2005 PDRS. [↩]
  2. FYI: The multiple disabilities chart in the rating schedules gives you disability increments of 5% points. [↩]
  3. The chart on the right is from the 1988 PDRS [↩]

By Posted on Posted in Downloads, EAMS, PDRater, Workers Compensation Resources Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec
2
2008
Block Letters
Block Letters

According to a recent DIR news bulletin on November 17, 2008 the new WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure were approved by the Office of Administrative Law and filed with the Secretary of the State and (apparently) made effective that same day.  If you haven’t already reviewed the new regulations, now’s a good time.  You can check them using the above links or download it here:

New WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure (Effective 11-17-2008)

Since the new WCAB rules became effective, the new EAMS forms are now mandatory.  The exceptions named in the above bulletin are:

  • There will be a four-week “transition period” in effect through December 12, 2008 during which the “legacy”1 forms will still be accepted.
  • Forms requiring multiple signatures will be accepted in “legacy” form as long as the filer establishes that circulation began prior to November 17, 2008. 2
  • Unrepresented injured workers will be allowed until February 17, 2009 to use “legacy” forms.
  • Unrepresented injured workers who do not have access to a computer or typewriter will be allowed to fill in the new OCR forms by printing using block letters.34

Did you know there’s a handbook for the new Optical Character Recognition EAMS forms?  You can check it out here or download it here:

EAMS OCR Handbook (Rev. 11-24-2008)

  1. Read: non-EAMS [↩]
  2. I suppose the easiest way to demonstrate this is to point out that at least one of the signatures was dated prior to 11/17/2008. [↩]
  3. Though, I suppose printing clearly in all-capital letters migh work better… [↩]
  4. Photo courtesy of Thomas Hawk. [↩]

By Posted on Posted in 2005 PDRS, Calculators, PDRater, Subscription Features, Technobabble, Website Updates, Workers Compensation Resources Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,
Nov
20
2008

Calculator Performance Issue: It has come to my attention that some users are having problems with the “Body Part” code finder.  This problem apparently occurs when you click on the “Body Part” button and just see a spinning blue “waiting” disc instead of a list of body parts.

Temporary Fix: Even though the Body Part code search function does not work for some users, the rating functions still appears to work just fine.  If you know the Body Part code, you should be able to enter it manually in the box provided.  If you are performing a 2005 schedule rating, please use the full 8 digit body part code.

Permanent Solution: I am working on a fix for this problem and will update this website as soon as I am able.  I cannot be sure, but I suspect that the problem is being caused, in part, by the recent increase in the popularity of this website.1

To all paid-subscription users:

I value your business and appreciate your patience.  If this problem persists, I will create a second website exclusively for your use.

In the meantime, if you’re having problems with the calculators, however small, please e-mail through the Contact Us link at the top.  The more information I have about the problem, the better able I will be to diagnose and fix it.

Thank you again for your patience.

Sincerely,

Jay Shergill

  1. Yay, popularity!  Boo, problems! [↩]

By Posted on Posted in PDRater, Workers Compensation Resources Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Nov
18
2008
Imaginary Security
Imaginary Security

What’s worse:

Having no security or having the illusion of security?12 Before you answer, you might want to read this article about how TSA security at airports is just plain ridiculous.

Keep in mind that by definition, the only difference between no security and illusory security is your ignorance – not someone else’s.

That said, having the illusion of security is worse.

No Security

If you have no security, you could at least take steps to improve security.  Let’s restate the question to highlight the distinction:

Would you rather have no burglar alarm or have a burglar alarm that never works and tells you it does?

Although not having a burglar alarm won’t prevent you from making foolish decisions3, at least you’ll have the opportunity to know you’re making a foolish decision.  Without a burglar alarm your decisions might be wise or foolish – but only accidentally so.

Illusory Security

Some would argue that the illusion of security provides a deterrence effect.  The only people who believe in the illusion of security is better are those who have something to gain by selling illusory security.4

  • First, deterrence is not a benefit of actual security.  Actual security depends upon the ability to actually stop something from occurring.  Deterrence is, at best, only a side-effect of actual security.  To the extent that actual security relies upon deterrence, its really just illusory security.  When good security is employed deterrence is either irrelevant or unnecessary.  Case in point:  If I have a good guard dog outside my house, I could care less what he looks like.
  • Second, as the above article suggests only stupid or careless criminals are deterred by illusory security.  Even the stupidest criminal knows that some people have actual security and other have only the illusion of security.  Don’t forget, if a criminal doesn’t care about whether you have actual or illusory security, then there is no deterrent effect.  If that same criminal cares whether you have illusory or actual security, then they’ll do the minimum to determine whether you have security.  If this hypothetical criminal instead who doesn’t know or care about illusory or actual security is stupid and will try out security measures.
  • Third, deterrent effects do not require illusory security.  Case in point:  If you know you don’t have a burglar alarm, there’s nothing preventing you from buying signs that say you do.  If deterrence is truly a worthy goal, then why not just opt for no security and specificallly develop the illusion of security.

Stupid Security

Why am I blathering on about security today?  I had an appearance at the Oakland WCAB on Monday afternoon.  As per the instructions of the security guard, I removed all metal from my person and placed it all in the plastic bin provided.  As I was about to walk through the metal detector, she pointed to my shirt pocket and asked what was in it.

Jay:  “Paper – see?”  I showed the parking lot ticket and a receipt from lunch.

Security Guard:  “Put that in too.”

Jay (giving a puzzled look):  “Why?  There’s nothing metal in it.  Its just paper.”

Security Guard:  “Just in case.”

I swear her response was, “Just in case.”  At this point I gave up.  There is little point in arguing with truly profound ignorance.

Just in case of what, exactly?

Just in case paper turns into metal?  Just in case I was hiding something in the paper I just showed her?  Isn’t that what metal detectors are supposed to find anyhow?

  1. Original photo courtesy of Daquella manera [↩]
  2. “i” stands for an imaginary number.  :) [↩]
  3. Such as going on vacation with the front curtains wide open showing off your 60″ plasma screen. [↩]
  4. Call this a reductionist statement and ad hominem attack all you want.  But, you better back that up with an actual reason why illusory security is better than no security.  If you’ve got one, I’d like to see it. [↩]