Category: Workers Compensation Resources

By Posted on Posted in 2005 PDRS, AMA Guides, Ogilvie, Technobabble, Wage Loss, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Back to the drawing board
Back to the drawing board

DOWNLOAD THE MATHEMATICAL PROOF AS A PDF!

A little while ago William S. Morris, an Applicant’s attorney, told me that the Ogilvie adjustment calculation could be further simplified.  ((Photo courtesy of Dahveed76)) He suggested the following ((I’m paraphrasing here)) :

  1. Earnings Loss ((PIESSE = Post Injury Earnings of Similarly Situated Employees)) ((PIEA = Post Injury Earnings of Applicant))
    1. L = (PIESSE – PIEA) / PIESSE
  2. Individualized Proportional Earnings Loss
    1. = (WPI / L) / 100
  3. DFEC Adjustment Factor
    1. = ([1.81/a] * .1) + 1
    2. = ( (1.81 * .1)/a) + 1
    3. = (.181/a) + 1
    4. = 1 + (.181/a)
  4. Ogilvie DFEC Adjusted Rating
    1. = WPI * DFEC Adjustment Factor
    2. = WPI * (1 + (.181/a) )
    3. = WPI * (1 + (.181 / Individualized Proportional Earnings Loss) )
    4. = WPI * (1 + (.181 / ( (WPI / L) / 100) ) )
    5. = WPI * (1 + (18.1 / ( (WPI / L)  ) )
    6. = WPI * (1 + (18.1 * (L/WPI) ) )
    7. = WPI + (18.1 * L)
  5. Conclusion
    1. If the injured workers’ individualized proportional earnings loss is outside all of the FEC ranks, you may calculate the Ogilvie adjustment by adding (18.1*Earnings Loss) to the WPI.

The only flaw with the proofs offered by William and myself is that they are too exact.  The WCAB in Ogilvie never sets forth the exact process for performing the Ogilvie adjustment calculation – so the only official method involves rounding to different significant figures at different places.  Thus, a calculation performed in strict accordance with the WCAB in Ogilvie and through one of these mathematical proofs would differ very slightly.

What do you think? Leave a comment or drop me a line.

By Posted on Posted in Author, EAMS, PDRater, Road Warrior 3 Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Will it be a trifecta????
Will it be a trifecta????

My personal best is two walk through settlements at two different WCAB district offices in a single morning.  Tomorrow I am going to attempt three walk through settlements at three different WCAB district offices in a single morning.  My plan is to start my day at the San Jose WCAB at 8:00AM, hit the Oakland WCAB afterward, jet to San Francisco, and then return to the office.  Google Maps tells me that this is going to be 134 miles over 2 hours and 39 minutes.  ((If I had another walk through to do in Santa Rosa, I would be planning a different order.)) ((Photo courtesy of Matthew Armstrong))

As I mentioned before, there’s a lot of things that can go wrong – traffic, long walk through lines, a broken photocopier.  ((Or, heaven forbid, EAMS could be working tomorrow.  THAT would foul me right up.))

But, I’ve done what I can to ensure this works.  I’ve called the other parties, have a checklist of everything I need to do in the order I need to do it, my cell phone is charged up ((And a back up cell phone charged up too!)) , phone numbers for opposing counsel and my clients hand, GPS charged up, prepared Minutes of Hearing, Document Cover Sheets, Document Separator Sheets, Awards, and Orders.  ((I even sacrificed a giant sequoia sapling as an offering to EAMS.)) ((I’m even bringing two extra settlements just in case one falls through!  Although, this is really due to coincidence than meticulous planning…))

If you happen to be in San Jose, Oakland, or San Francisco today stop me and say hello.  (And – pretty please may I cut ahead of you in line?)

Lastly, I’ll be checking back here throughout the day, so how about leaving me a word of encouragement in the comments? ((I think live blogging the trip might be a bit much – but we’ll see.))

By Posted on Posted in Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Sometimes you get what you pay for
Sometimes you get what you pay for

Here at PDRater, I like to impart a little bit of medical knowledge when I can.  I’ve shown you how swearing can reduce pain, blue M&M’s can heal spinal injuries and now…  sugar is much better for you than previously thought.

Scientists are discovering that placebos are becoming more and more effective.  In order to determine a particular drug is efficacious, they need to perform controlled tests using the real drug in one group and another group taking fake (usually just sugar) pills.

There is no logical reason placebos should have any effect, let alone an effect similar to the real drug being dispensed to the non-control group.  The only explanation I can think of is that people are putting so much faith in the healing power of modern medicine and drugs that they are literally thinking themselves better.

So… what have we learned today?  As best as I can tell, we’re supposed to curse and eat sugar and candy.  ((Photo courtesy of Scroy65))

Thanks Wired!

By Posted on Posted in Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , ,
Would you sign my copy of Ogilvie?
Would you sign my copy of Ogilvie?

As I mentioned a few days ago, I was recently at the State Bar Convention in San Diego.  While at the Steve Jimenez Memorial Special Recognition Awards Ceremony, I bumped into one of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board commissioners. ((You’ve got a one in nine chance of guessing which one.  ;)  ))

It was one of those days where I’m kicking myself for not lugging around my copy of Ogilvie II. ((Photo courtesy of USAFA87))

I got to tell this commissioner, “I’m a big fan of your work.” ((Yes, yes, I already know I’m a great big nerd.))

By Posted on Posted in 2005 PDRS, Case Law, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Oh, if only rehab was this easy...
Oh, if only rehab was this easy…

Vocational experts seem to have gotten pretty well trampled by the recent Ogilvie I and Almaraz/Guzman I en banc decisions.  The Ogilvie II and Almaraz/Guzman II en banc decisions didn’t do them any favors either.

As far as I can tell, the WCAB ((Well, eight of the commissioners anyhow.)) in Ogilvie II basically flip flopped on the role of vocational experts.  Under Ogilvie I at least one very entrepreneurial vocational counselor was making money performing the Ogilvie I formula adjustments and offering to testify to support their findings. (( I received more than one letter demanding agreement to a vocational counselor under Ogilvie I.))

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board in Ogilvie II has very explicitly stated that vocational experts are not necessary when it comes to performing the Ogilvie I formula adjustment – since it is an objective and retrospective calculation.

This leaves open the question of whether vocational expert testimony is only relevant when defending against an Ogilvie argument.