PDRater – PD calculators

PDRater: No Bills!

To this day, most of the e-mails I receive are from people asking me some variation of “No, really, how much does it cost to use these calculators? When am I going to be charged? What’s the catch?”

I intend to keep all the calculators free for anyone who cares to use them. I have built this website because I really do enjoy the hell out of blogging about tech stuff and workers’ comp law, dissecting complex workers’ compensation math formulas, and building something useful to myself and other professionals. This is quite literally how I spend my free time. I’m just that nerdy.

XYZZXSJO2 - The sequel!

Last week I posted about a recent case from the San Jose WCAB that indicated a life pension SAWW[1] increase is applied on the first January 1 after the date of injury.  You can find a download of the XYZZXSJO2 case here.

I’ve just finished the COLA / SAWW future life pension rate 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. [2]

Please keep in mind that this is not a life pension with SAWW / COLA increase commutation calculator.  The actuarial math involved in performing that calculation is … intense.

As an interesting side note, this week I saw my very first DEU commutation of a life pension with COLA increase.  Unlike the typical commutations everyone receives from the DEU, this commutation calculation was devoid of the actual methodology used.  I was pretty disappointed to find this out.

No matter!  Help beta test the new calculator by dropping me a line.  After you’ve given it a whirl, let me know what you think.

1. SAWW means State Average Weekly Wage [↩]
2. If you have already helped me out as a beta tester, you already have access to this calculator. [↩]

Workers' Compensation Calculator

I had an interesting e-mail exchange with a friend (and fellow workers’ compensation professional) the other day.[1]

We were discussing the impacts of Ogilvie on 2005 schedule ratings.  He had asked me whether I intended to update the 2005 permanent disability rating calculator to include FEC Ranks after the scheduled 8.  I believe he had suggested FEC Ranks 9 through 20.

I have no intention of manufacturing FEC Ranks 9 through 20 for the following reasons:

• Maintaining Standards. The entire point of a rating schedule is to allow a standardized method for calculating disability and expressing those disability calculations.   If I invented my own FEC Rank system beyond the scheduled 1-8 Ranks, I would essentially be creating my own rating calculation system.  I’ve gone to considerable lengths to ensure that the rating strings produced by these permanent disability calculators are as standardized, recognizeable, and universal as possible.
• FEC Ranks are Irrelevant. The FEC Rank system is a simplified method of applying DFEC adjustment factors.  When you use the FEC Rank of a particular body part to adjust the standard using the charts on pages 2-6 and 2-7 of the 2005 PDRS (permanent disability rating schedule), what you’re really doing is essentially multiplying your standard disability against the FEC adjustment factor associated with the particular FEC Rank for the body part in question.  An FEC Rank is only useful for telling you the appropriate FEC adjustment factor to apply to the standard disability.  Thus, FEC Ranks are irrelevant and FEC adjustment factors are all important.
• Arbitrary FEC Ranks. FEC Rank 1 has an FEC adjustment factor of “1.100″.  However, using the Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal formula, it is possible to end up with very low FEC adjustment factors.  In extreme circumstances it would be possible to have a negative FEC adjustment factor.  The only way to resolve this would be to have several possible negative FEC Ranks.  Besides being somewhat silly, worrying about additional FEC Ranks[2] misses the point.  If you’re using the Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal formula properly, the result will be a new FEC adjustment factor.  If you already have the FEC adjustment factor, you have no need for the FEC Rank!

When I had discussed the impact of Ogilvie earlier, I had pointed out that in some cases the resulting formula will dictate that you use a different FEC Rank than the one indicated by the affected body part.  In other cases you will need to use an entirely new FEC adjustment factor.  In order to keep the 2005 disability calculator current I will eventually have to create a way for the user to override a body part’s standard FEC Rank and specify a new FEC Rank or their own FEC adjustment factor.

I’m not in any particular rush to develop this feature since Ogilvie seems to require three years of post-injury earnings.  I doubt we’re going to see litigation begin in earnest over Ogilvie issues for another 18 to 24 months.

1. Photo courtesy of Street Fly JZ [↩]
2. Both higher and lower than the normal 8 [↩]

Combined Values Chart for the 2005 PDRS

A few weeks ago I posted about the Multiple Disabilities Table for combining disabilities with injuries prior to 2005.

For injuries after 2005 we must turn to the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule.  When combining disabilities for injuries after 2005 there are several possible alternatives.  You can:

• Open up your copy of the AMA Guidelines to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition to pages 604 through 606.
• Open up your copy of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule to pages 8-1 through 8-4.[1]
• Reverse engineer the combined values formula from the three pages of 4 point font in the Combined Values Chart.[2]
• OR, my personal favorite, take 30 seconds to sign up for free and use the combined values chart calculator whenever you want!

1. In case you’re wondering, the chart on the right is a super-condensed version of the Combined Values Chart on pages 8-2 through 8-4. [↩]
2. Honestly, I don’t recommend this.  It wasn’t fun. [↩]

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