Tag: Wcab

By Posted on Posted in 2005 PDRS, Case Law, DFEC Rebuttal, Ogilvie, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ogilvie for Dummies
Ogilvie for Dummies

UPDATE: DOWNLOAD THE MATHEMATICAL PROOF AS A PDF!

Get ready to stop paying people to do Ogilvie calculations, recycle your Gearheart/Gerlach handouts, and delete your Frost Excel spreadsheet. ((Sorry Jeff, Mark, Mark, and Ray!))  We’re about to go all “Beautiful Mind.”

Yesterday while at the Oakland WCAB an Applicant’s attorney mentioned he noticed an interesting trend in the Ogilvie formula.  ((Thank you “S”!  Unfortunately, he did not want to be named.)) ((Man, I *wish* I could take credit for this observation.)) He said that whenever he does an Ogilvie calculation for someone with a 100% earnings loss and a modest WPI, the WPI is always increased by 18.  ((Not multiplied by 18, but an addition of 18.))

I ran a number of test calculations on this theory and it appeared to be right.  My calculations show that up to a WPI of 44 the increase appears to always be 18.1, but the last “0.1” always gets rounded down.  However, appearing to be right just isn’t good enough for me.  And, because I am just truly that nerd, here’s the fully mathematical proof:

Let’s break down the calculations at the heart of Ogilvie:

  1. Earnings Loss ((PIESSE = Post Injury Earnings of Similarly Situated Employees)) ((PIEA = Post Injury Earnings of Applicant))
    1. = (PIESSE – PIEA) / PIESSE
    2. = ($1.00 – $0.00) / $1.00
    3. = $1.00 / $1.00
    4. = 1
    5. = 100%
  2. Individualized Proportional Earnings Loss
    1. = (WPI / Earnings Loss) / 100
    2. = (WPI / 100% )/100
    3. = (WPI / 1) / 100
    4. = WPI / 100
    5. Thus, for any WPI less than 45 and a total loss of earnings, the Individualized Earnings Loss will always be less than 0.450 in Table A.
  3. DFEC Adjustment Factor
    1. = ([1.81/a] * .1) + 1
    2. = ( (1.81 * .1)/a) + 1
    3. = (.181/a) + 1
    4. = 1 + (.181/a)
  4. Ogilvie DFEC Adjusted Rating
    1. = WPI * DFEC Adjustment Factor
    2. = WPI * (1 + (.181/a) )
    3. = WPI * (1 + (.181 / Individualized Proportional Earnings Loss) )
    4. = WPI * (1 + (.181 / (WPI / 100) ) )
    5. = WPI * (1 + (.181 * 100 / WPI ) )
    6. = WPI * (1 + (18.1/ WPI ) )
    7. = WPI * ( (WPI/WPI) + (18.1/ WPI ) )
    8. = WPI * (WPI + 18.1/ WPI )
    9. = WPI * (WPI + 18.1/ WPI )
    10. = WPI + 18.1
  5. Conclusion
    1. If you have an Applicant with a 100% post injury earnings loss and a WPI of 44 or less, you should rebut the FEC and arrive at an adjusted WPI that is equal to the original WPI plus 18.1.

Therefore, I propose a new Ogilvie formula that will be easy for anyone to remember:

  • Step 1: If the injured worker has a 100% earnings loss and a WPI of 44 or less, add 18.1 to the WPI and round down.
  • Step 2: If the injured worker has less than 100% earnings loss or a WPI of 45 or higher, go to Step 3.
  • Step 3: For heaven’s sake, just make your life easier and use the calculators here at PDRater.com.

What do you think?  Leave a comment or drop me a line.

By Posted on Posted in Author No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , ,
...and she was reading this!
...and she was reading this!

Yesterday morning I was driving to the San Jose Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board along 680 in the midst of some pretty gnarly traffic.  A woman followed me in her black Infiniti from roughly Danville to Dublin, tailgating. ((Photo courtesy of BillyPalooza))

She was following me so closely, I could literally read her lips as she was chanting, “Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god.”

I kid you not.

By Posted on Posted in 2005 PDRS, Almaraz / Guzman, AMA Guides, Articles, Case Law, DFEC Rebuttal, Ogilvie, Vocational Rehabilitation, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Always room for guest articles at PDRater!
Always room for guest articles at PDRater!

Emily Tincher has recently provided a vocational expert’s perspective on the Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman decisions.

Have you got an article on workers’ compensation you’d like to see published?  Drop me a line and let me know. ((Photo courtesy of Stephen Cummings))

Thanks Emily!

P.S. For those of who keeping score at home, this is my 200th post!!!  That’s 200 posts in 357 days or roughly a post every 1.7 days.

By Posted on Posted in Case Law, PDRater, Vocational Rehabilitation, Website Updates, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
WCAB: Throwing babies out with the bathwater since 1965
The WCAB: Throwing babies out with the bathwater since 1965

For context, its best to see the prior post about the WCAB’s Weiner v. Ralph’s (en banc) decision.  There’s even a link to the Weiner v. Ralphs (en banc) decision for download – just so you can play along at home.

The question in the title of the post is really a question about the WCAB’s rationale – not their end legal justification behind Weiner.  I believe the Weiner case hints that the WCAB is going to go the other way and uphold their rulings in Almaraz/Guzman and Ogilvie.

However, I think the WCAB’s rationale for ending vocational rehabilitation was because of the potential for enormous retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance awards at the temporary total disability rate outside the cap (VRTD). ((Photo courtesy of Stephane Raymond)) ((You see, I’m suggesting that the bathwater is VRTD and the baby itself is vocational rehabilitation.  Kinda kills the metaphor, eh?))

By Posted on Posted in Case Law, PDRater, Vocational Rehabilitation, Website Updates, Workers Compensation Resources 1 Comment Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Weiner v. Ralphs spells the end of rehab
Weiner v. Ralphs spells the end of rehab

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board recently solicited amicus briefs regarding the Weiner v. Ralphs case.  After review of the amicus briefs on the topic of the repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5 and vocational rehabilitation, the WCAB has just issued their en banc opinion. ((Photo courtesy of larryfishkorn))

Download a copy of Weiner v. Ralphs (en banc) right here:

Obviously, you’ll need to read and interpret Weiner v. Ralph’s for yourself.  Here’s the Board’s own summary:

  1. The repeal of section 139.5 terminated any rights to vocational rehabilitation benefits or services pursuant to orders or awards that were not final before January 1, 2009
  2. A saving clause was not adopted to protect vocational rehabilitation rights in cases still pending on or after January 1, 2009
  3. The vocational rehabilitation statutes that were repealed in 2003 do not continue to function as “ghost statutes” on or after January 1, 2009
  4. Effective January 1, 2009, the WCAB lost jurisdiction over non-vested and inchoate vocational rehabilitation claims, but the WCAB continues to have jurisdiction under sections 5502(b)(3) and 5803 to enforce or terminate vested rights; and
  5. Subject matter jurisdiction over non-vested and inchoate vocational rehabilitation claims cannot be conferred by waiver, estoppel, stipulation, or consent.

What does Weiner v. Ralph’s mean to you?

  1. Vocational rehabilitation is gone unless there is a “vested” right by way order that became final prior to 1/1/2009.
  2. If you already have a final order for vocational rehabilitation, the WCAB can still hear a dispute.