Tag: Wcab

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.

By Posted on Posted in Almaraz / Guzman, Case Law, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments 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.  ((Photo courtesy of arturodonate))  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.

By Posted on Posted in 2005 PDRS, AMA Guides, Blogging, Calculators, DFEC Rebuttal, Ogilvie, PDRater, Technobabble, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
I think we can dispense with the caption, just this once...
I think we can dispense with the caption, just this once...

A defense attorney friend of mine called me up yesterday to say (I’m paraphrasing here), “You jackass.  Thanks to your Ogilvie proof every Applicant’s attorney I know is calling me up, gloating, and asking for 18 points on top of the whole person impairment on every case!  Why the hell did you do that???” ((Photo courtesy of giuliomarziale))   My first thought was of my favorite quote from Swingers. ((Just for you Ray!)) What I actually said was something along the lines of:

  • It’s not like CAAA wouldn’t have found out about Ogilvie if it wasn’t for Jay Shergill mentioning it in a blog post.
  • Nothing has changed except that now anyone can perform an Ogilvie adjustment calculation in their head. ((And save $129.99 in the process))
  • Someone was going to prove that Ogilvie adds 18 points to the WPI in virtually all litigated workers’ compensation cases, so it might as well be me.

For the moment, let’s set aside the issue of whether California’s injured workers have gotten a raw deal since SB899.  Suppose there’s an injured worker with a finger injury, stays on temporary disability for two years, and is immediately made permanent and stationary.  If instead they get a 0% WPI, they get nothing.  If they gets a 1% WPI, Ogilvie tells us this person gets a DFEC adjusted WPI of 19%.

Nearly every litigated case involves an extended period of temporary disability and a whole person impairment less than 45. ((Hell, a permanent irreversible coma is only a WPI of 80.))  Ogilvie effectively removes the first 18% permanent partial disability levels.

I really don’t think the WCAB intended this consequence.  Don’t get upset with me – as long as Ogilvie is the law I might as well make Ogilvie calculations easy for you, right? ((Remember, just add 18 to the WPI!))

By Posted on Posted in Author, PDRater, Road Warrior, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , ,
THIS is how you do an expedited hearing

I obtained two walk through settlements yesterday morning.  I’m feeling pretty good.

Oh, did I forget to mention one was in Santa Rosa and the other in Oakland? ((Photo courtesy of brian.stein))

What has four eyes and smells like burning rubber?

Me

By Posted on Posted in Blogging, Links, Medical Provider Network, Medical Treatment No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
spine injury cure
Utilization Review Certified: 1 Fun Size Bag

A few weeks ago I posted about how swearing can reduce pain. ((Photo courtesy of Daneen_vol)) If you thought that was unbelievable, read on:

Researchers at University of Rochester Medical Center have apparently found that the dye in blue M&M’s can lessen the secondary effects of spinal injuries. ((Via Slashdot)) Those mice that received the injections of this blue dye recovered the ability to walk, and those without the injections did not.  The only side effect reported was, I kid you not, that the mice turned blue.

You can’t make this stuff up.  Anyhow, here’s the first ten jokes that occurred to me after reading that article:

  1. The blue M&M’s replaced the tan M&M’s in 1995 when it was discovered the tan ones caused spinal injuries. ((You remember the tan ones, don’t you?))
  2. Not to be outdone, Skittles researchers report their candies allow you to pee unicorns.
  3. The WCAB has now issued another en banc opinion that the office candy jar constitutes the rendering of first aid.
  4. *Disclaimer: This study was funded by The Great Pumpkin, the Easter Bunny, and the Mars Corporation.
  5. It has now been discovered that the members of the Blue Man Group are impervious to spinal injuries.
  6. …and that’s why the Smurfs have the lowest workers’ compensation premiums on the Cartoon Network.
  7. Researchers also found that it was the blue dye in Viagra, not sildenafil citrate, that helped with erectile dysfunction.
  8. The legislature has amended Labor Code 4604.5(d)(1) to allow a maximum of 24 ounces of M&M’s per industrial injury.
  9. “Your honor, under Braewood v. WCAB (Bolton), Defendants must authorize the blue M&M’s in order to treat the underlying industrial condition.”
  10. The Governor has added a new ballot measure that would replace the California MPN system with a new M&M based system.

I think the last one is my favorite.  :)