The WCAB is soliciting input on vocational rehabilitation
The WCAB has just issued an “Order Allowing Amicus Briefs” (en banc) in the Weiner v. Ralph’s Company case. ((Photo courtesy of Mathoov)) The Weiner case is about the effect of the legislature’s repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5 as of January 1, 2009. The repeal of this statute may have the effect of terminating all rights to vocational rehabilitation.
For the curious, you can download a copy of the Order Allowing Amicus Briefs (en banc) here:
"Hi, is this the room for the bench and bar meetings? I brought my brown bag lunch!"
I was recently invited to participate on the Oakland Bench & Bar Committee. The first meeting of the rejuvenated committee is going to take place tomorrow. ((Nothing fancy – everyone’s bringing their own brown bag lunch.)) ((Photo courtesy of zappowbang.))
The committee includes a wide variety of stakeholders from the community – applicant, defense, lien claimants, and judges. The purpose of this committee is to foster discussion of issues of concern to the WCAB Oakland district office and the community.
Ideas?
I realize this is short notice, but is there a topic/issue you would like brought up at the bench and bar meeting tomorrow? Leave a comment or send me an e-mail!
On Monday April 6, 2009 the WCAB issued three Orders Granting Reconsideration and Order Allowing Amicus Briefs (en banc) in Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman. For your review:
The WCAB has granted SCIF’s petition for reconsideration in Almaraz, granting reconsideration on their own motion in Guzman, and the parties’ petitions for reconsideration in Ogilvie. They have granted reconsideration on these cases to, “afford us a sufficient opporutnity to study the issues.” ((Hence, the “The Thinker” reference above…))
Any interested party may file an amicus brief no later than May 1, 2009 at 5pm.
Inputs. The calculator results repeats the inputs with the results. This ensures that the answer provided gives you enough context when showing the calculation to the other side or when you go back to review your file.
Links. I’ve added a link to the various Employment Development Department and U.S. Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics inside the calculator itself. It doesn’t automatically obtain the information, but hopefully you will find this helpful.
There are two other issues I’m thinking about:
An easy way to pull up the FEC rank of a particular body part. Its kind of a pain to look up the body part, find the FEC rank, and then enter that into the calculator. I’m thinking ways to simplify this process. This shouldn’t be too bad to write.
So, here’s the deal: I want to build the absolute most comprehensive suite of calculators and tools for workers’ compensation professionals. ((Why? Some people have wacky hobbies. Maybe you build hockey arenas out of toothpicks. I build workers’ compensation calculators and give them away for free. If it will put you at ease, I hope to make money from advertising in the future.)) I also want your help to making them better.
Is it possible to get an Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impairment above 100%?
I believe it mightbe theoretically possible to achieve an adjusted whole person impairment above 100% using the Ogilvie DFEC formula. I could easily include a small variation on the calculation that would prevent it from exceeding 100, but I have not done so because I wanted to replicate the the formulas set forth in Ogilvie as exactly as possible.
Why can’t I use post-injury earnings of $0.00? What if they have no earnings at all?
That’s an extremely valid point. If you try to use a post-injury earnings of “zero”, it will cause division by “zero” which is not a mathematically legal operation. Try post-injury earnings of $1.00 or $0.01. Doing so will give you an answer VERY close to what you need. ((I know it has a less than friendly error message about this. I’ll see what I can do about fixing that.))
The WCAB en banc in Ogilvie rounds to three decimal places at one step and to four decimal places at a second step. The only way we know what they actually did is by extrapolating from the examples in the decision – they never actually state “round to four significant digits here, round to three significant digits there.” I have rounded exactly as they did in their examples.
At the end of the day, there are two ways to perform the Ogilvie DFEC calculation: the exact way the WCAB did it (sometimes four, sometimes three decimal places) and the way they probably intended to do it (four decimal places until the end). I made the judgment call to use the formula as they performed it, warts and all.
Why did I choose to round as the WCAB did? I think it is more defensible to calculate exactly as the Board did, rather than as I think the Board should have calculated.
How do you put the Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impairment into the rating calculator?
At this point, you can’t use a different FEC Rank or an Ogilvie DFEC adjustment factor in the 2005 PDRS rating calculator on this site. In order to accomodate this, I would need to either rewrite the entire calculator or write a new calculator. One other possibility is that I could modify the Ogilvie DFEC calculation to provide one extra line of information – where it “runs the FEC numbers backwards.”
Let’s take this example: Suppose the body part FEC rank is 1 and whole person impairment is 10. The normal FEC adjusted whole person impairment would be 11. Let’s suppose after applying the Ogilvie DFEC formula it turns out you should have an FEC rank of 8 instead. This would give you an Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impariment of 14%. I could write a modification of the current Ogilvie DFEC calculator to put 14% into the FEC Rank chart and look up what whole person impairment you would need with an FEC rank of 1 to arrive at 14%. Would you find this a helpful interim fix? Please let me know by sending me an e-mail.
Jay, why in the world did the Ogilvie DFEC calculator reference “standard disability”? Shouldn’t it say “whole person impairment”?
You’re totally correct. I’ve fixed this. Mea culpa.
Here’s my request for your help. In order to make an Ogilvie calculation valid, you need to put in valid post-injury earnings of similarly situated employees. The WCAB in Ogilvie suggests several possible sources: ((I’ve copied the links directly from Ray Frost‘s Ogilvie spreadsheet/calculator. Ray has been kind enough to allow me the use of his extensive work restrictions lists. So, thanks Ray!))
What do you use for post-injury earnings of similarly situated employees? If I had a better idea where people were looking it is possible that I might be able to automate the inclusion of this informaiton as well. Please drop me a line and let me know. If there is a general consensus, I’ll look into the possiblity of having this informaiton automatically imported from an external website.
