Three doctors is probably just plain excessive. And more than a little creepy.

My prior record for doctor depositions was three in one month.  This was not at all intentional.  It was probably a number of factors.  I tend to take more doctor depositions than most.[1] Almaraz/Guzman issues are usually best addressed during a deposition.  And, lastly it just happened to be an extra busy month.

This week I attended three doctor depositions (two set by myself, one set by a co-defendant).  I’d say that pretty well trumps three in a month.  :)

A special shout-out goes to Doctors Z, J, and C.  Thanks for putting up with me guys.  Also, special thanks to Mr. W, my co-Defendant without whom this wouldn’t have been possible.

1. Photo courtesy of Little Miss no Name.  Photo editing – all me! [↩]

The end for Milpitas USD?

Update: Download Milpitas United School District v. WCAB and Guzman, 6th Appellate District Court H034853, ADJ3341185, SJO0254688!

Looks like Milpitas Unified School District v. WCAB and Guzman is here to stay. [1] The 6th Appellate Court has just affirmed the WCAB’s decision in full.

Where does this leave us?  Well, under “Almaraz/Guzman II” we need to get a “strict AMA” and either side can obtain an “Almaraz/Guzman II” opinion from the doctors based upon rebuttal evidence, with the Judge being the final arbiter.

What else does this mean?  I’m probably going to break my personal record for the most doctor depositions in a single month.

Click here for more in depth coverage of Guzman!

1. Photo courtesy of funkandjazz [↩]

Almarez/Guzman: Full steam ahead

Yesterday the 6th Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal issued a Writ of Review, denied Defendants’ request for a stay, and indicated that the matter would be set for oral argument. [1]  If you would rather just read what they have to say, here it goes:

Petitioner’s request for a stay is denied. Petitioner’s request for judicial notice, filed on 10/16/09 is denied. The petition for writ of review is granted as follows: Let a writ of review issue ordering the WCAB to certify & return to this court is official record in Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District & Keenan & Associates, WCAB case No. ADJ3341185 (SJO0254688), not later than 3/25/10. Respondents may file opposition on 3/25/10. Petitioners my reply to the opposition in 20 days after the opposition is filed in this court. The matter will be placed on calendar at a time & place to be specified by court order. Any party desiring oral argument shall so inform this court in writing on 3/25/10 by completing & returning to this court the attached “request for oral argument” form (P, E, WD)

What does this mean for you?  Well, it means at least another four months of Almarez/Guzman II.

The fastest I recall a case going from the granting of a Writ of Review to to Order after oral argument was about four months.  In that case (Rollick) the Court of Appeals had basically already made up their minds about the issues and had allotted each side 10 minutes of argument.  The oral argument in that case took place about four months after the Writ was granted and Order issued almost immediately after argument.  However, the issues presented by Almarez/Guzman II are considerably more intricate.

For more analysis on this decision check out the article on WCExec!

1. Photo courtesy of jjjohn. [↩]

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:[1]

• 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). [2]
  • 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.

1. Photo courtesy of Scallop Holden [↩]
2. 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. [↩]

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. [1]  Download the Ogilvie/Almaraz/Guzman decisions all in one place:

• Ogilvie v. WCAB I (en banc) 2/3/2009
• Ogilvie v. WCAB II (en banc) 9/3/2009

• Almaraz/Guzman I (en banc) 2/3/2009
• Almaraz/Guzman II (en banc) 9/3/2009

Each of these four is about 50 pages.  Read them carefully, there will be a test later.

1. Photo courtesy of arturodonate [↩]