Tag: Wcab

By Posted on Posted in Calculators, Case Law, COLA, Death Benefits, Life Pension, PDRater, Permanent Total Disability, SAWW, Website Updates, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
XYZZXSJO2 - The motion picture!
XYZZXSJO2 - The motion picture!

Last week while Steve was at the Sacramento WCAB he heard about a recent case that held the COLA / SAWW adjustments and increases are calculated based upon the first January 1 following the date of injury.  ((COLA = cost of living adjustment.)) ((SAWW = state average weekly wage.))

This case involving SIF (the subsequent injuries fund) is from the San Jose WCAB.  The name of the case is “XYZZXSJO2 v. Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund, ADJ 1510738, SJO 0251902”.  The name of the Applicant was anonymized to protect their identity.  ((I hope to have a scan of this decision for you soon!)) ((David DePaolo of WorkCompCentral.com has graciously allowed me permission to offer you a copy of XYZZXSJO2 for download!  Thanks David!))

Download a copy of XYZZXSJO2 now!

Thus far the conventional wisdom has been that the COLA/SAWW increases are calculated starting with the first January 1 after life pension gets paid out.  This is a tremendous change in the COLA/SAWW calculation of life pension.

Assuming a 1/1/2003 injury at exactly 70% permanent partial disability, there would be 426.5 weeks of permanent disability paid after the permanent and stationary date before the life pension gets paid out.  This equates to 8.2 years from the permanent and stationary date that has, thus far, not been taken into account with life pension calculations to date.  To put this in perspective, if someone had an injury on 1/1/2003 and became P&S on that same date ((Not likely.)) , the traditional method of calculating the life pension with COLA / SAWW increase would be too low by approximately 44%.

At the moment I’m finalizing a COLA / SAWW life pension calculator to determine what the future life pension rates are assuming a COLA / SAWW increase of 4.7% per year.  If you’re interested in becoming a beta tester for this COLA / SAWW calculator for life pension increases, please drop me a line and ask for access.

Unfortunately, I don’t have a citation for the 4.7% COLA / SAWW increase, but I believe it to be the offiical average used by the DEU ((Disaiblity Evaluation Unit.)) to calculate commutations of COLA / SAWW increases and adjustments.  If you have an official citation or document from the DEU, please drop me a line so I can include that citation here!

By Posted on Posted in Case Law, Downloads, Free, Ogilvie, PDRater, Website Updates, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District
California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District

The First Appellate District of the Court of Appeal of the State of California has affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board in Benson v. WCAB and the Permanente Medical Group, affirmed (2/10/2009).  The Court of Appeals held, in relevant part, that “[t]he Wilkinson doctrine is inconsistent with the apportionment reforms enacted by Senate Bill No. 899.”

The basic upshot is that barring “limited circumstances” each distinct industrial injury will require its own Award.

First Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman, now Benson?  Its been an exciting two weeks to be a Workers’ Compensation attorney.

Office of the Clerk
Office of the Clerk

By Posted on Posted in 2005 PDRS, AMA Guides, Calculators, Downloads, Free, Ogilvie, PDRater, Technobabble, Website Updates, Workers Compensation Resources 2 Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Professor, tell me more of this DFEC rebuttal calculator...
Professor, tell me more of this DFEC rebuttal calculator...

Earlier today I installed an Ogilvie v. City and County of SF DFEC Rebuttal calculator into the free workers’ compensation calculators page on this website.  ((Photo courtesy of Draggin)) ((I had this EXACT same calculator as a kid!)) ((Why, how did you spend your Friday night?)) For the moment it is only available to people who have signed up for this website and asked to be a beta tester.  If all goes well, I’ll flip a switch and make it available to the public on Monday morning.

At the moment it requires four pieces of information:

  1. FEC Rank (re: body part in question)
  2. Standard disability (re: body part in question)
  3. Post-injury earnings for Applicant
  4. Post-injury earnings for employees similarly situated to Applicant

Once you add in that information, click “Calculate” and it should crunch through the formula and give you a response.  The WCAB in Ogilvie suggested several possible outcomes to this formula:

  • The “Individualized Loss Ratio” for the injured worker is the same or within the range for the current FEC Rank for the affected body part.  In this circumstance, the 2005 DFEC has not been rebutted.
  • The “Individualized Loss Ratio” for the injured worker is within the range of one of the other seven FEC Ranks.  Here, the DFEC portion of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule might be rebutted.
  • The “Individualized Loss Ratio” for the injured worker is outside the range of all eight FEC Ranks.  In this circumstance, you could end up with a new FEC Adjustment Factor much higher or lower than any FEC Adjustment Factor associated with the eight FEC Ranks.  Here, the DFEC portion of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule might be rebutted.

Obviously, there are innumerable factors that go into considerations of whether a Judge (or the WCAB) would find the DFEC portion of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule to be rebutted.  This calculation and the information relied upon in performing this calculation cannot be taken as a guarranteed method of rebutting the DFEC portion of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule.

If you’re not a registered user for this website, its free to sign up and free to use all the workers’ compensation calculators.  That’s right: free as in free.

By Posted on Posted in Calculators, Case Law, Downloads, Free, PDRater, Technobabble, Website Updates, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Whats the WCAB doing NOW???
What's the WCAB doing NOW???

UPDATE 9/3/2009:  Download the new en banc Ogilvie II and Almaraz/Guzman II decisions here!

Need a FREE sample Ogilvie analysis brief complete with citations?

Some crazy stuff has happened in the last two days.  ((Photo courtesy of Kyle Kesselring)) Two big en banc decisions were just handed down from the WCAB. Here they are, hot off the presses and ready for downloading:

Of the two cases, I enjoyed Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco much more.  This case describes to what extent the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule may be rebutted ((Basically just the DFEC portion.)) and how one might go about doing this.

Pages 22 through 32 are basically nothing but math.  ((Yay!))  These pages detail the information and methodology necessary to rebut the DFEC portion of the 2005 Schedule.

Last night I wrote a prototype calculator which will allow you to determine whether you may or may not be able to rebut the DFEC portion of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule.  This calculator would only perform the DFEC rebuttal calculations suggested in the majority opinion, since this is now the law of the land.  My plan is to test it this weekend and launch it Monday.

However, if anyone is interested in helping me test it, I would appreciate the help.  Just drop me a line and I’ll give you the link as soon as its ready.

In the meantime, if you want to crunch the numbers yourself (or follow along with the WCAB in Ogilvie), you will probably find Table A and Table B page 1-7 of the 2005 PDRS to be very helpful.

FYI, there are a lot of “footnotes” in Ogilvie that reference various online documents or websites.  I’ve downloaded a copy or provided a screenshot of each of these pages for your reference:

By Posted on Posted in Downloads, EAMS, PDRater, Workers Compensation Resources No Comments Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Block Letters
Block Letters

According to a recent DIR news bulletin on November 17, 2008 the new WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure were approved by the Office of Administrative Law and filed with the Secretary of the State and (apparently) made effective that same day.  If you haven’t already reviewed the new regulations, now’s a good time.  You can check them using the above links or download it here:

New WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure (Effective 11-17-2008)

Since the new WCAB rules became effective, the new EAMS forms are now mandatory.  The exceptions named in the above bulletin are:

  • There will be a four-week “transition period” in effect through December 12, 2008 during which the “legacy” ((Read: non-EAMS)) forms will still be accepted.
  • Forms requiring multiple signatures will be accepted in “legacy” form as long as the filer establishes that circulation began prior to November 17, 2008.  ((I suppose the easiest way to demonstrate this is to point out that at least one of the signatures was dated prior to 11/17/2008.))
  • Unrepresented injured workers will be allowed until February 17, 2009 to use “legacy” forms.
  • Unrepresented injured workers who do not have access to a computer or typewriter will be allowed to fill in the new OCR forms by printing using block letters. ((Though, I suppose printing clearly in all-capital letters migh work better…)) ((Photo courtesy of Thomas Hawk.))

Did you know there’s a handbook for the new Optical Character Recognition EAMS forms?  You can check it out here or download it here:

EAMS OCR Handbook (Rev. 11-24-2008)