Permanent Disability Rating Schedule

Home › Workers Compensation Resources › Archive for Permanent Disability Rating Schedule
Jul
18
2011
Almaraz / Guzman, Conference, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Permanent Total Disability, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Boot Camp
Boot Camp

The Workers’ Compensation Specialization Boot Camp on July 16 and 17 in Los Angeles was a packed house. 1  If you missed out, there’s another chance to attend on July 30 and 31 in Concord.

If you did attend the seminar in Los Angeles, I promised you a copy of all of the cases cited during the presentation on Permanent Disability.  Here’s the basic outline along with a download link for every case I cited:

  1. Permanent Disability
    1. Cal. Labor Code. Section 4660
    2. LeBoeuf v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.
    3. Costa v. Hardy
    4. Almaraz/Guzman “II”
    5. Guzman “III”
    6. Ogilvie “II”
    7. (Updated 7/29/2011!) [Download not found]
      1. Read a summary of Ogilvie III here!
    8. Argonaut Ins. v. Ind. Acc. Comm (Montana)
  2. Psychiatric Injuries
    1. Cal. Labor Code Section 3208.3
    2. Dept. of Corrections v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia)
  3. Apportionment
    1. Cal. Labor Code Section 4662
    2. Cal. Labor Code Section 4663
    3. Cal. Labor Code Section 4664
    4. Cal. Labor Code Section 3213 – 3213.2
    5. Escobedo v. Marshall’s
    6. Benson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.
    7. Brodie / Welcher
  4. Rating
    1. Blackledge v. Bank of America
    2. Policy & Procedures Manual of the WCAB
  5. (Updated 7/18/2011!) Flash Card Take Away
    1. Please register for a free account with PDRater.com to download this file.
    2. Seriously – free as in free.  There’s no charge, no credit card anything.

  1. Permanent Disability

    1. Cal Labor Code § 4660

    1. Description of disability

    1. 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule

      1. Rebutting the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule

      1. LeBeouf

    1. 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule

      1. Permanent Impairment

      1. Rebutting the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule

      1. Costa/Harding

      1. Almaraz/Guzman II

      1. Guzman “III”

      1. Ogilvie II

  1. Photo courtesy of jumpinjimmyjava [↩]
Mar
13
2010
2005 PDRS, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , ,

This afternoon I am presenting at the Workers’ Compensation Section Spring Conference 2010 with a presentation entitled, “Calculating Ogilvie.”  Due to cases relevant to Ogilvie coming out as recently as ten days ago, I’m making the resources mentioned here for everyone to download (along with a rough outline of the presentation).

  1. Ogilvie Formula
    1. Ogilvie formula (longhand)
      1. Each of the steps in the Ogilvie formula explained
    2. Ogilvie formula (shorthand)
      1. Mathematical proof demonstrating a simplified Ogilvie formula
      2. Download the simplified Ogilvie mathematical proof as a PDF here
    3. Ogilvie formula (oversimplified)
      1. Learn how to perform an Ogilvie calculation in your head in 5 minutes (PDF download)
    4. Ogilvie formula (18 point rule)
      1. Read the Ogilvie “18 point rule”
      2. Download the Ogilvie “18 point rule” as a handy PDF
  2. Ogilvie Case Law
    1. Ogilvie v. WCAB I (en banc) 2/3/2009
    2. Ogilvie v. WCAB II (en banc) 9/3/2009
    3. Bowden v. Sunray Termite San Jose WCAB Panel Decision ADJ4536632
    4. Shini v. Pacific Coast Auto Body & Truck San Diego WCAB Panel Decision ADJ2079252 (1/25/2010)
    5. Ochoa v. UPS Ground Freight Order Denying and Report and Recommendation on Reconsideration ADJ1758338 (2/8/2010)
    6. Bertha Noriega Garcia v. Patrick L. Hinrichsen WCAB Panel Decision ADJ6721939 (3/1/2010)
  3. Litigating Ogilvie
    1. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (Montana) (1962) 57 Cal.2d 589
  4. Applicant Attorney Ogilvie Handbook
  5. Defense Attorney Ogilvie Handbook
  6. Appendix
    1. EDD Labor Market Information Division
    2. Cal. Labor Code § 4651 “Average annual earnings shall be taken as fifty-two times the average weekly earnings referred to in this chapter.”

Sample Ogilvie DFEC analysis brief, complete with citations, explanations, and exhibits

Jan
20
2010
2005 PDRS, Downloads, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Workers Compensation Resources

Also not a valid permanent disability rating schedule for 2009
Also not a valid permanent disability rating schedule for 2009

I’ve been getting a lot of questions about the Draft 2009 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule.  There is no 2009 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule. 1

Yes, yes, I know we’re supposed to have a new schedule per 8 CCR 9805, but the proposed draft 2009 PDRS was never approved.

Overall, the draft 2009 Permanent Disability Schedule doesn’t change much from the existing 2005 schedule.  The biggest change is in the application of the FEC rank adjustment.  Instead of increasing permanent disability between 10% and 40%, the proposed FEC rank system would increase permanent disability between 20% and 50%.  Additionally, the proposal suggested juggling the various ranks among the body regions.  If you’re curious about the exact proposed changes, the DWC Newsline gave a really great overview back on May 9, 2008.

Here’s the take-away:

  1. Photo courtesy of wenzday01 [↩]
Dec
14
2009
2005 PDRS, AMA Guides, Case Law, Ogilvie, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,
If you can use duct tape, you can perform an Ogilvie DFEC analysis in 5 minutes
If you can use duct tape, you can perform an Ogilvie DFEC analysis in 5 minutes

An Ogilvie / DFEC analysis isn’t really difficult, especially when this website has a free Ogilvie / DFEC calculator.1 The problem comes when you have to prove all the math behind those calculations.  This involves “showing your work.”

The best way to “show your work” is to take the reader through each step of the Ogilvie analysis.  I’ve prepared a sample report (generated using a new service on this website) which provides a clear and easy to understand format for “showing your work.”

The steps are basically this:

  • Step 0:  2005 PDRS rating string
  • Step 1: Post-Injury Earnings of Applicant
  • Step 2: Post-Injury Earnings of Similarly Situated Employees
  • Step 3: Calculate Proportional Earnings Loss
  • Step 4: Calculate Individualized Rating to Loss Ratio
  • Step 5: Compare Individualized Rating to Loss Ratio to range of ratios for the FEC ranks

For those interested, here’s a more detailed explanation of each step in an Ogilvie / DFEC analysis.

When each step of the Ogilvie / DFEC analysis is stated clearly, the reader can see every assumption, step, and perform their own calculations to verify your conclusions.  As long as the parties agree on the numbers used in an Ogilvie / DFEC calculation, they should always arrive at the same result.

Setting forth every single step of your Ogilvie / DFEC analysis lets you to spend less time arguing about the impact of Ogilvie and more time trying to get the case settled.

  1. Photo courtesy of indigotimbre [↩]
Nov
12
2009
2005 PDRS, Articles, DFEC Rebuttal, Ogilvie, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Wage Loss, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Building the case for a DFEC rebuttal
Q: How do you build the case for a DFEC rebuttal? A: One step at a time.

There’s a lot of conflicting information about what Judge’s are requiring to making a finding of a DFEC rebuttal under Ogilvie v. City and County of S.F.. 1  The Board in Ogilvie II is explicit that all you need is post-injury earnings information for the injured worker and similarly situated employees and “simple mathematical calculations with that wage data” using a “non-complex formula.”2

Unfortunately, calling a process “simple” and “non-complex” doesn’t necessarily make it so.  Apparently some Judges are requiring some additional showing beyond wage data and “simple calculations.”

What are Judges in your area requiring?

  • Just wage data and calculations?3
  • Vocational testimony/evidence regarding earnings?
  • Proof of attempts to seek employment/motivation?
  • Something else?

Share your insight with an e-mail or comment.

  1. Photo courtesy of eliaspunch [↩]
  2. Ogilvie II, p1-2. [↩]
  3. Perhaps just a print-out from PDRater?  ;) [↩]
Sep
16
2009
2005 PDRS, Case Law, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Workers Compensation Resources

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 WCAB1 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.2

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.

  1. Well, eight of the commissioners anyhow. [↩]
  2. I received more than one letter demanding agreement to a vocational counselor under Ogilvie I. [↩]
Sep
9
2009
2005 PDRS, DFEC Rebuttal, Ogilvie, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dont cry - you had a good run
Don't cry - you had a good run

You may not want to hear this, but Ogilvie II is probably worse for Defendants than Ogilvie I.  1  Check out page 32:

if within five years of the date of injury it later becomes clear that the employee’s individualized proportional earnings loss is significantly higher or lower than anticipated, a party may seek to reopen the issue of permanent disability by challenging the originally used DFEC adjustment factor.

I think we can expect to see a petition to reopen on any case that settled prior to 2/3/2009. 2

  1. Photo courtesy of Lawrence Whittmore [↩]
  2. February 3, 2009 is the day Ogilvie I came out. [↩]
Sep
3
2009
Almaraz / Guzman, Case Law, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , ,
The Board is back!
The Board is back!

Need a FREE sample Ogilvie analysis brief complete with citations?

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board is back with their en banc decisions on Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman after reconsideration. 1  Download the Ogilvie/Almaraz/Guzman decisions all in one place:

Each of these four is about 50 pages.  Read them carefully, there will be a test later.

  1. Photo courtesy of arturodonate [↩]
Apr
6
2009
1997 PDRS, 2005 PDRS, Almaraz / Guzman, AMA Guides, DFEC Rebuttal, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Need more time to think about Ogilvie, Almaraz, and Guzman?
Need more time to think about Ogilvie, Almaraz/Guzman?

Sometimes even the WCAB needs more time to think.1

On March 26, 2009, the director of the Department of Industrial Relations, John C. Duncan, issued a letter to the entire Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board asking them to vacate their own decisions and solicit argument and amicus briefs.  Here’s a copy, courtesy of WCExec.com, the Letter from Director of DIR to WCAB re: Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman (3/26/2009).

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:

What does the Order Granting Reconsideration of Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman mean for you?

    1. Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman are still the law.  Despite Commissioner Aghazarian’s two concurring opinions, the WCAB did not issue a stay of either Ogilvie or Almaraz/Guzman.
    2. 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
    3. Any interested party may file an amicus brief no later than May 1, 2009 at 5pm.
      1. Photo courtesy of radiospike photography [↩]
      2. Hence, the “The Thinker” reference above… [↩]