Tag: almaraz guzman 2

By Posted on Posted in Almaraz / Guzman, Conference, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Permanent Total Disability, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Boot Camp
Boot Camp

The Workers’ Compensation Specialization Boot Camp on July 16 and 17 in Los Angeles was a packed house.  ((Photo courtesy of jumpinjimmyjava))  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 id=”46″]
      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

By Posted on Posted in 2005 PDRS, Almaraz / Guzman, AMA Guides, Case Law, Ogilvie, Permanent Partial Disability, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman - lets cut to the chase
Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman - let's cut to the chase

First off, if you haven’t already downloaded Ogilvie II and Almaraz/Guzman II, do so now!

As I mentioned previously, each of these cases is about 50 pages long, so there is clearly no substitute for reading them for yourself.  However, here’s Ogilvie II and Almaraz/Guzman II in five sentences: ((Photo courtesy of Scallop Holden))

  • Ogilvie v. WCAB II:
    • The WCAB ruled the original Ogilvie (I) formula is still valid.
    • The WCAB appears to have created a right to reopen a case for “individualized proportional earnings loss.”
    • Vocational testimony is not an appropriate way to dispute the DFEC portion of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule.
    • (Bonus Dissent Summary: The lone dissent by Caplane says that vocational testimony should be considered proper rebuttal to an entire permanent disability rating.)
  • Almaraz/Guzman II:
    • The WCAB ruled that a doctor must issue reports within the “four corners” of the AMA Guides 5th Edition to comply with Labor Code Section 4660(c).  ((Here, the phrase “four corners of the AMA Guides” just means the parties are restricted to the actual text of the AMA Guides and cannot use analogies and evidence from outside the AMA Guides.))
    • However, either party may obtain rebuttal evidence in the form of supplemental reports and depositions regarding the use of any other chapter, method, or table within the AMA Guides.
    • (Bonus Dissent Summary:  The dissenting opinion from Brass, Caplane, and Moresi says they would affirm their decision in Almaraz/Guzman I.)

What do these cases mean for the practitioner?

  • The WCAB has created a new right to reopen for a higher than expected “individualized proportional earnings loss.”
  • The Ogilvie Mathematical Proof of 18 Point Add-Ons still stands.
  • I see even more doctor depositions in my future.
  • My phone is going to be ringing off the hook tomorrow.