To this day, most of the e-mails I receive are from people asking me some variation of “No, really, how much does it cost to use these calculators? When am I going to be charged? What’s the catch?”
I intend to keep all the calculators free for anyone who cares to use them. I have built this website because I really do enjoy the hell out of blogging about tech stuff and workers’ comp law, dissecting complex workers’ compensation math formulas, and building something useful to myself and other professionals. This is quite literally how I spend my free time. I’m just that nerdy.
The WCAB is soliciting input on vocational rehabilitation
The WCAB has just issued an “Order Allowing Amicus Briefs” (en banc) in the Weiner v. Ralph’s Company case.1 The Weiner case is about the effect of the legislature’s repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5 as of January 1, 2009. The repeal of this statute may have the effect of terminating all rights to vocational rehabilitation.
For the curious, you can download a copy of the Order Allowing Amicus Briefs (en banc) here:
"Hi, is this the room for the bench and bar meetings? I brought my brown bag lunch!"
I was recently invited to participate on the Oakland Bench & Bar Committee. The first meeting of the rejuvenated committee is going to take place tomorrow. 12
The committee includes a wide variety of stakeholders from the community – applicant, defense, lien claimants, and judges. The purpose of this committee is to foster discussion of issues of concern to the WCAB Oakland district office and the community.
Ideas?
I realize this is short notice, but is there a topic/issue you would like brought up at the bench and bar meeting tomorrow? Leave a comment or send me an e-mail!
Nothing fancy – everyone’s bringing their own brown bag lunch. [↩]
On Monday April 6, 2009 the WCAB issued three Orders Granting Reconsideration and Order Allowing Amicus Briefs (en banc) in Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman. For your review:
The WCAB has granted SCIF’s petition for reconsideration in Almaraz, granting reconsideration on their own motion in Guzman, and the parties’ petitions for reconsideration in Ogilvie. They have granted reconsideration on these cases to, “afford us a sufficient opporutnity to study the issues.”2
Any interested party may file an amicus brief no later than May 1, 2009 at 5pm.
I was recently sent feedback about the Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal calculator on this website. 1 Here’s how I’ve incorporated that feedback:
Inputs. The calculator results repeats the inputs with the results. This ensures that the answer provided gives you enough context when showing the calculation to the other side or when you go back to review your file.
Links. I’ve added a link to the various Employment Development Department and U.S. Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics inside the calculator itself. It doesn’t automatically obtain the information, but hopefully you will find this helpful.
There are two other issues I’m thinking about:
An easy way to pull up the FEC rank of a particular body part. Its kind of a pain to look up the body part, find the FEC rank, and then enter that into the calculator. I’m thinking ways to simplify this process. This shouldn’t be too bad to write.
You may have noticed a few cosmetic changes in the look of the workers’ compensation calculators. 1 It turns out that some of the calculators are getting a LOT more use than others.
In order to make them a easier to use, I’ve re-ordered all of the calculators in rough order of popularity. 2 Hopefully you’ll find this helpful. Eventually I plan to separate out all of the EAMS related search functions from the actual benefits calculators.
I’ve found that when you click to expand a calculators it would cause the entire page to scroll to the top. I’ve fixed this.
Late last week a user asked for a new feature.1 He wanted to be able to perform the Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal calculation and have the results e-mailed to him.2 Well, I built it!3
To e-mail yourself a calculation, perform the calculation as normal. When the website returns your calculation, it will say “E-mail Me!” Just click that button and it will send an e-mail to the address you used to register for this website.
However, here’s the cool part: I’ve installed this new e-mail system into every calculator! 4 No more having to copy and paste! Just click one button and your calculation will show up in your inbox!5
Although I intend this to be a paid-subscription-only feature, I am going to leave it open for all users while I get some feedback. So, what do you think? Please leave a comment or shoot me an e-mail!
Why, what did you do with your Saturday morning? [↩]
I haven’t installed it in some of the EAMS lookup functions [↩]
If you filled in the boxes for Applicant, WCAB #, and File #, it will include this information in your e-mail as well. This is only for your convenience and not a requirement. [↩]
So, here’s the deal: I want to build the absolute most comprehensive suite of calculators and tools for workers’ compensation professionals. 1 I also want your help to making them better.
Is it possible to get an Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impairment above 100%?
I believe it mightbe theoretically possible to achieve an adjusted whole person impairment above 100% using the Ogilvie DFEC formula. I could easily include a small variation on the calculation that would prevent it from exceeding 100, but I have not done so because I wanted to replicate the the formulas set forth in Ogilvie as exactly as possible.
Why can’t I use post-injury earnings of $0.00? What if they have no earnings at all?
That’s an extremely valid point. If you try to use a post-injury earnings of “zero”, it will cause division by “zero” which is not a mathematically legal operation. Try post-injury earnings of $1.00 or $0.01. Doing so will give you an answer VERY close to what you need. 3
The WCAB en banc in Ogilvie rounds to three decimal places at one step and to four decimal places at a second step. The only way we know what they actually did is by extrapolating from the examples in the decision – they never actually state “round to four significant digits here, round to three significant digits there.” I have rounded exactly as they did in their examples.
At the end of the day, there are two ways to perform the Ogilvie DFEC calculation: the exact way the WCAB did it (sometimes four, sometimes three decimal places) and the way they probably intended to do it (four decimal places until the end). I made the judgment call to use the formula as they performed it, warts and all.
Why did I choose to round as the WCAB did? I think it is more defensible to calculate exactly as the Board did, rather than as I think the Board should have calculated.
How do you put the Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impairment into the rating calculator?
At this point, you can’t use a different FEC Rank or an Ogilvie DFEC adjustment factor in the 2005 PDRS rating calculator on this site. In order to accomodate this, I would need to either rewrite the entire calculator or write a new calculator. One other possibility is that I could modify the Ogilvie DFEC calculation to provide one extra line of information – where it “runs the FEC numbers backwards.”
Let’s take this example: Suppose the body part FEC rank is 1 and whole person impairment is 10. The normal FEC adjusted whole person impairment would be 11. Let’s suppose after applying the Ogilvie DFEC formula it turns out you should have an FEC rank of 8 instead. This would give you an Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impariment of 14%. I could write a modification of the current Ogilvie DFEC calculator to put 14% into the FEC Rank chart and look up what whole person impairment you would need with an FEC rank of 1 to arrive at 14%. Would you find this a helpful interim fix? Please let me know by sending me an e-mail.
Jay, why in the world did the Ogilvie DFEC calculator reference “standard disability”? Shouldn’t it say “whole person impairment”?
You’re totally correct. I’ve fixed this. Mea culpa.
Here’s my request for your help. In order to make an Ogilvie calculation valid, you need to put in valid post-injury earnings of similarly situated employees. The WCAB in Ogilvie suggests several possible sources:4
What do you use for post-injury earnings of similarly situated employees? If I had a better idea where people were looking it is possible that I might be able to automate the inclusion of this informaiton as well. Please drop me a line and let me know. If there is a general consensus, I’ll look into the possiblity of having this informaiton automatically imported from an external website.
Why? Some people have wacky hobbies. Maybe you build hockey arenas out of toothpicks. I build workers’ compensation calculators and give them away for free. If it will put you at ease, I hope to make money from advertising in the future. [↩]
I know it has a less than friendly error message about this. I’ll see what I can do about fixing that. [↩]
I’ve copied the links directly from Ray Frost‘s Ogilvie spreadsheet/calculator. Ray has been kind enough to allow me the use of his extensive work restrictions lists. So, thanks Ray! [↩]
Clearly, Almaraz/Guzman has been a boon to the U.S. Postal Service. I’ve been receiving Almaraz/Guzman letters from Applicant attorneys on my files ever since the en banc decision came out. These letters typically fall into one of three categories:
Almaraz/Guzman does not absolve a doctor from the responsibility to generate a medical report which addresses the AMA Guides and constitutes substantial medical evidence.
Tuesday I tried to submit settlement documents for a walk-through in Oakland. 1 I had prepared the document cover sheet, minutes of hearing, and had everything ready to go. As per procedure, I left the packet with the court clerk and came back about half an hour later.
When I returned the settlement documents were still on the counter, but without any indication of which judge I would be seeking approval from. I was told that the documents had already been signed by the day’s walk-through judge.
That’s when the fun started.
The computer told the clerk that the original documents in front of us had the judge’s signature and that the judge had the file. The documents clearly did not have the judge’s signature. However, since EAMS believed the documents were already approved, it felt (?) I shouldn’t be given the opportunity to walk the documents through. Even more interestingly, the EAMS was telling us that the documents had been approved that very afternoon.
Since I had stamped the documents in, the clerk did not want to return them to me so that I could ask the judge if he had signed the settlement. Mind you, the judge would have had to sign the documents (in invisible ink) in the half hour between the time I dropped off the documents and came back to pick them up. Eventually I was allowed to take the documents with me to ask the judge if he had signed them.
Once before the walk-through judge, I explained that I had no board file because EAMS believed he already had the file and had approved the documents I was handing him. Puzzled, the judge went to investigate whether he had approved the documents that did not have his signature. He returned a few minutes later saying that he did not have the file, he did not recall signing the documents, and that he did not recall signing any documents for myself or the Applicant’s attorney involved. EAMS was adamant that he had signed those documents.
Thankfully everyone in the hearing room was good-natured about the entire thing. The funniest part about the entire situation is that the court clerk, myself, and the judge were made to doubt our own recollection, the documentary evidence in front of us, and sanity because EAMS said so.
