Blog Page

By Posted on Posted in Author, EAMS, Technobabble, Workers Compensation Resources Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Mar
18
2009
Your request for hearing has been DENIED
Request for hearing DENIED

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.

If you haven’t seen this already, you should really see this incredibly funny EAMS video.

  1. Photo courtesy of racatumba. [↩]

By Posted on Posted in Almaraz / Guzman, Author, Business, Calculators, Case Law, COLA, Free, Ogilvie, PDRater, SAWW, Technobabble, Website Updates, Workers Compensation Resources Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Mar
17
2009
Indy 500
Indy 500

Wow!  500 registered users!

Last month I mentioned that this website had a record number of new visitors.  I honestly thought that was an anomalous one day spike in traffic.  Instead we’ve had a sustained increase in new visitors and people signing up to use the workers’ compensation calculators for free.

Since February 13, 20091 I’ve enjoyed posting about:

Ever since I relaunched this website I’ve had this idea in the back of my mind that getting to 500 users would be a big deal.  There are literally hundreds of workers’ compensation professionals who rely on this website and its calculators to make their lives a little easier.  This certainly feels like a big deal to me.

  1. When the 400th user registered. [↩]
  2. I am keeping this calculator in beta testing until I get a little more feedback.  If you want to try it out, just drop me a line! [↩]

By Posted on Posted in Almaraz / Guzman, Case Law, Ogilvie, Workers Compensation Resources Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Mar
13
2009
California Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District
California Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any crazier in workers’ compensation than Ogilvie, Almaraz/Guzman, Benson, and XyzzxSJO2.  Yesterday I found out that on April 7, 2009 the case of Smith v. WCAB (California Youth Authority) is on calendar for oral argument.  As with Almaraz/Guzman, Smith v. WCAB dealt with similar legal issues across two particular workers’ compensation cases.  In case you missed it, here’s the court of appeal decision:

Smith involved an informal denial of medical treatment without a formal petition to terminate medical care under L.C. 4607, after an award of permanent disability. Eight years after Smith’s  award, SCIF refused to authorize epidural injections.  Smith’s attorney sought utilization review, Smith was reexamined by the AME who said the injections were necessary to relieve from the effects of the industrial injury.  Although SCIF then authorized the injections without the need for a hearing, Smith’s attorney sought fees under L.C. 4607.

The WCJ denied Smith’s attorney’s petition for fess since there was no formal petition to terminated medical care.  The WCAB denied reconsideration on the grounds that SCIF’s was not denying all medical treatment.

Amar is substantially similar to Smith, except that in Amar the workers’ compensation judge took the extra step of opining that SCIF’s denial of medical treatment was made in good faith, not unreasonable, and not improper.

However, the 2nd Appellate Court reversed the WCAB in Smith and Amar, stating in relevant part:

“We see no difference when a carrier informally denies some of the treatment that is a necessary part of medical care previously awarded. This is tantamount to a petition to deny medical care even though the carrier continues to provide treatment for some of applicant’s medical care.”

“Insurance carriers who fail to provide previously awarded medical care may not avoid attorney fees to successful applicants’ attorneys through the expedient of an informal denial, even when they do so in good faith.”

I would love to watch the oral argument on this case – but Los Angeles is a bit of a hike for me. 1  I am very very interested to see how this case shakes out.

  1. I last watched oral argument on the Mt. Diablo Unified School District v. WCAB (Rollick) case back on 8/5/2008.  It was particularly interesting for me since I was familiar with the applicant attorney, defense attorney, and facts of that case.  If nothing else, its always fun to watch judges get snarky. [↩]

By Posted on Posted in Not Workers Compensation Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Mar
11
2009
Glasses, online
Glasses, online!

Is pupillary distance is important?

Does pupillary distance matter?

Yes! Pupillary distance is the distance, in millimeters, between the center of your eyes.  When your eyeglass professional is building your glasses, they will need to make sure the “sweet spot” for each lens is directly in front of each eye.  They do this using your pupillary distance.

Its possible to have a different pupillary distance for each eye if your eyes are not the same exact distance from the center of your face.  Don’t feel bad – your mom still loves you!

When you go into a brick and mortar eyeglass store, they measure your pupillary distance for you.  If you’re buying glasses online, you can either measure your pupillary distance yourself or you can ask your eye doctor to measure it for you.  If you’re buying glasses online, don’t cheap out – get your eye doctor to measure your pupillary distance for you.  You can do it yourself – but why leave something this important up to chance?  If you insist on doing it yourself, you just need a mirror and a metric ruler and measure the distance between the center of your two pupils.

Now that I’ve answered the burning question about pupillary distance:

By Posted on Posted in Business, Not Workers Compensation Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Mar
10
2009
Glasses, online
Glasses, online!

Last week I posted a Goggles4U.com review. 1 My review was favorable despite having received glasses that didn’t really work for me.  It just so happens, according to my eye doctor, that some people are more sensitive to the “Base Curvature.”  I happen to be one of those people and there’s no way either I or Goggles4U could have known that.  The bottom line is that I received glasses with the exact prescription I specified- you can’t ask more than that.

After trying out this pair of glasses for a week I notified Goggles4U customer service that I was too sensitive to the “Base Curvature.”  They responded immediately and gave me a code to order a new pair.  I placed the order on 2/27/2009, sent them an e-mail specifying a comfortable range for the Base Curvature.  The new glasses arrived on 3/7/2009.

These new glasses, with transition/polychromatic lenses, are great. I haven’t had any problems with them at all.  I will still take them back to my eye doctor to confirm, because I think any review would be incomplete without an independent confirmation from a medical professional.

In end sum, I would recommend Goggles4U without reservation.  Check out my prior review (now updated!) for the complete review and a Goggles4U coupon.

  1. Photo courtesy of Morningstar Lee [↩]