If you want to combine multiple disabilities for injuries before 2005, ((After 2005, you may need to use the Combined Values Chart from the 2005 PDRS.)) you can:
Use the six step formula in the 1997 PDRS on page 7-12.
Use the two page chart in the 1997 PDRS on pages 7-15 to 7-16 ((FYI: The multiple disabilities chart in the rating schedules gives you disability increments of 5% points.)) ((The chart on the right is from the 1988 PDRS))
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” ((Read: non-EAMS)) 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. ((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.))
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. ((Though, I suppose printing clearly in all-capital letters migh work better…)) ((Photo courtesy of Thomas Hawk.))
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:
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. ((Yay, popularity! Boo, problems!))
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.
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 decisions ((Such as going on vacation with the front curtains wide open showing off your 60″ plasma screen.)), 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. ((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.))
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?
MicroSoft has no one to blame but themselves for my deleting MicroSoft Office. Well, its partly Dell’s fault too, but that’s a long story I’ll tell some other time. (Short version: Dell repaired a prior laptop and shipped it to a construction site in Oakland.)
OpenOffice.org released version 3.0 of their program on October 13, 2008. It was so wildly popular that their website was crushed under the overwhelming demand. The three most important things to know about OpenOffice are:
Its open source, so its completely free. So, there’s no reason not to give it a shot.
It can open, edit, and save to any MS Office 2000, 2003, 2007, and WordPerfect formats.
It can print or export any file to a PDF.
If you’re a Workers’ Compensation professional in California, you’re probably dealing with EAMS. Since filing things with EAMS means working with a lot of PDF’s. In order to keep from reinventing the wheel, it makes sense to save those PDF’s of the document cover sheets. But what if you need to make a small change later on? Well, OpenOffice v3.0 can help with that too.
Using an extension((basically a small program)) OpenOffice can open and edit and re-save a PDF file. Not even Adobe, the company that promotes the PDF format ((I know that’s redundant.)) , does a good job of opening and editing PDF’s.
This is a really big deal to me because editing saved PDF’s is going to save me a lot of time editing settlement documents and various pleadings.
Update
I wrote the above about a month ago while I gave OpenOffice 3.0 a shot. It won’t install on my Vista laptop but works great on my XP desktop. I’ve reverted to OpenOffice 2.4 on the laptop while I wait for a fix. OpenOffice 2.4 is still free, but it won’t open MS Office 2007 formats (which not everyone is using anyhow) and cannot edit PDFs.
