Blog Page

By Posted on Posted in 2005 PDRS, Almaraz / Guzman, Workers Compensation Resources
Feb
24
2010
Almarez/Guzman: Full steam ahead
Almarez/Guzman: Full steam ahead

Yesterday the 6th Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal issued a Writ of Review, denied Defendants’ request for a stay, and indicated that the matter would be set for oral argument. 1  If you would rather just read what they have to say, here it goes:

Petitioner’s request for a stay is denied. Petitioner’s request for judicial notice, filed on 10/16/09 is denied. The petition for writ of review is granted as follows: Let a writ of review issue ordering the WCAB to certify & return to this court is official record in Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District & Keenan & Associates, WCAB case No. ADJ3341185 (SJO0254688), not later than 3/25/10. Respondents may file opposition on 3/25/10. Petitioners my reply to the opposition in 20 days after the opposition is filed in this court. The matter will be placed on calendar at a time & place to be specified by court order. Any party desiring oral argument shall so inform this court in writing on 3/25/10 by completing & returning to this court the attached “request for oral argument” form (P, E, WD)

What does this mean for you?  Well, it means at least another four months of Almarez/Guzman II.

The fastest I recall a case going from the granting of a Writ of Review to to Order after oral argument was about four months.  In that case (Rollick) the Court of Appeals had basically already made up their minds about the issues and had allotted each side 10 minutes of argument.  The oral argument in that case took place about four months after the Writ was granted and Order issued almost immediately after argument.  However, the issues presented by Almarez/Guzman II are considerably more intricate.

For more analysis on this decision check out the article on WCExec!

  1. Photo courtesy of jjjohn. [↩]

By Posted on Posted in Author, Not Workers Compensation, PDRater, Road Warrior Tagged with , , , , , ,
Feb
18
2010
Driving under the influence
Driving under the influence

Yesterday I was driving back from Modesto and I noticed a CHP officer out of the corner of my eye. 1  My first instinct is always to double check my speed.

However, yesterday afternoon I noticed this officer was on his cell, left elbow propped up on the edge of the window, yakking away, while tailgating a semi in the slow lane.

Not wanting to get pulled over for driving under the influence of irony, I didn’t take a picture with my phone.

BTW, I’ve got to be in San Francisco this afternoon – stop me and say hello!

  1. Photo courtesy of OregonDOT [↩]

By Posted on Posted in Author, Blogging, PDRater, Road Warrior Tagged with , , , , , , , ,
Jan
26
2010
Free pass
Free pass

Yesterday I had an appearance in San Jose and then another up in San Rafael.  From San Jose I drove up through San Francisco, northbound over the Golden Gate Bridge, to my appearance, then back over to Contra Costa County via the Richmond Bridge.1

Wait for it…

The Golden Gate is only toll southbound and the Richmond is only toll westbound.  I traveled over two bridges and didn’t pay a single toll!

  1. Photo courtesy of worldsurfer [↩]

By Posted on Posted in 2005 PDRS, Downloads, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Workers Compensation Resources
Jan
20
2010
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 [↩]

By Posted on Posted in Case Law, Ogilvie, Workers Compensation Resources Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,
Jan
18
2010
WCAB gives Ogilvie the green light
WCAB gives Ogilvie the green light

Apparently the defense attorney on Bowden v Sunray Termite wrote ex parte to the WCAB requesting the case be declared a significant panel decision. 1

Commissioner Miller’s letter (download below) notes Bowden was a “purely fact driven case” and “is not to be a statement of legal importance to the community.”  Commissioner Miller further points out Significant Panel decisions are citable panel decisions but not binding legal precedent. 2

[Download not found]

What does this mean to you?

Ogilvie has not been stayed, so sharpen your #2 pencils and work on your math skills.

  1. Photo courtesy of adamwilson [↩]
  2. Even if the defense attorney’s request had been granted Ogilvie, as an en banc decision, would still take precedence over Bowden. [↩]