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.
Thanks to our friends at AppealsBoardReporter.com, we now have access to 22 amicus briefs filed in the Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman cases. ((Photo courtesy of Black Glenn. Terrible pun courtesy of me.)) In late March 2009 the WCAB granted reconsideration of their recent Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman decisions – and invited the submission of amicus briefs. You can read and download them here:
Who produced them? Well, Ogilvie amicus briefs were filed by:
The Almaraz/Guzman briefs were filed by:
After reviewing the above list, I have to wonder: Why doesn’t CAAA have an amicus brief for Ogilvie? Does anyone know?
Sometimes even the WCAB needs more time to think. ((Photo courtesy of radiospike photography))
On March 26, 2009, the director of the Department of Industrial Relations, John C. Duncan, issued a letter to the entire Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board asking them to vacate their own decisions and solicit argument and amicus briefs. Here’s a copy, courtesy of WCExec.com, the Letter from Director of DIR to WCAB re: Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman (3/26/2009).
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:
What does the Order Granting Reconsideration of Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman mean for you?
Clearly, Almaraz/Guzman has been a boon to the U.S. Postal Service. I’ve been receiving Almaraz/Guzman letters from Applicant attorneys on my files ever since the en banc decision came out. These letters typically fall into one of three categories:
I’ve also heard of some doctors completely abandoning the AMA Guidelines to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, in favor of just analogizing impairment. This is not what was intended by the en banc panel in WCAB in Almaraz/Guzman.
There are numerous workers’ compensation professionals who are incredibly unhappy with Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman. Vocational experts are unhappy with Ogilvie, and somewhat hopeful with Almaraz/Guzman. Impairment rating specialists are not happy with Ogilvie or Almaraz/Guzman. These people may be unhappy with these new cases, but at least they’re starting to adapt.
As Julius Young of WorkCompZone.com just reported, some people are dealing with Almaraz/Guzman by putting on “webinars.” Phil Walker and Christopher Brigham have each announced “webinars.” According to Walker’s promotional e-mail, he charges $2,000.00 to appear for a one day seminar – and now he’s giving it away for free.
People will try to convince you that Almaraz/Guzman is not the law or “just” a WCAB decision. Do not believe these people. Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman are both en banc cases.
En banc decisions of the Appeals Board are binding precedent on all Appeals Board panels and workers’
compensation judges. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10341; City of Long Beach v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia) (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 298, 313, fn. 5 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 109, 120, fn. 5]; Gee v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1425, fn. 6 [67 Cal.Comp.Cases 236, 239, fn. 6]; see also Gov. Code, § 11425.60(b).)
Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman are binding precedent on judges and the WCAB itself. Don’t believe the hype and don’t stick your head in the sand. ((Photo courtesy of blakeimeson)) If you argue it is not the law or not binding precedent, you will lose. Yes, these cases may be appealed and may even be overturned.
I think it likely they will be appealled and highly unlikely they will be overturned.
