It's been a wild ride

Just over a month after oral argument the Court of Appeal has issued their ruling, reversing the en banc decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, annulled the award of permanent disability to Ms. Ogilvie, and remanding the case for further proceedings. [1]

So, what does this new Ogilvie decision mean for us?

1. The calculations from the en banc decisions of Ogilvie I/II are no longer valid.
2. An injured worker can still rebut a scheduled rating in accordance with Costa v. Hardy and L.C. 4660 .
3. An injured worker may rebut a scheduled rating in one of three ways:
   1. Demonstrating “a factual error in the application of a formula or the preparation of the schedule.”  (Ogilvie III, p10-11).  Given the examples provided, probably references proving a defect in the RAND Study 2003 itself.
   2. Demonstrating impairments via LeBoeuf v. W.C.A.B. -style analysis that “the employee will have a greater loss of future earnings than reflected in a rating because, due to the industrial injury, the employee is not amenable to rehabilitation.”  (Ogilvie III, p12).  However, the increased disability must not be “due to nonindustrial factors such as general economic conditions, illiteracy, proficiency to speak English, or an employee’s lack of education.”
   3. Demonstrating “the claimant’s disability has been aggravated by complications not considered within the sampling used to compute the adjustment factor.”  (Ogilvie III, p13).  This appears to be a two-step process of having to prove a complex injury and then proving that the sample for the adjustment factor didn’t account for such injuries or complications.

Download Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco, Court of Appeal, A126344, A126427 aka Ogilvie III right now!

1. Photo courtesy of mpieracci

What has two thumbs and loves to hear itself talk? THIS GUY!!!

There was a great turn out this morning to the “How to Obtain an Accurate PD Rating with the AMA Guides” put on by the Workers’ Compensation Section of the State Bar.  We covered a lot of ground in just two hours, from the DEU perspective presented by Annalisa Faina and Barry Knight entitled “Anatomy of Rating”, to Mark Gearheart’s “Substantial Medical Evidence to Support a Permanent Disability Rating,” and my own presentation on “Litigating Ogilvie.”  There was a lively discussion on the state of Almaraz/Guzman, Blackledge, and Ogilvie. [1][2]

Thanks to everyone who e-mailed me asking for the cases cited during our presentations.  I’ll be uploading them shortly.

Tonight is the “2010 Steve Jimenez Special Recognition Awards” honoring:

• Lifetime Achievement: The Honorable Pamela Foust (Ret.)
• Judge of the Year: The Honorable Jorja FrankHon. Jorja Frank
• Applicant Attorney of the Year: Marc Marcus
• Defense Attorney of the Year: Michael Marks

If you’re attending tonight, please stop me and say hello!  (I’ve got a name tag and everything)

1. Lively as in “barely civil”
2. I’m kidding!

1. Ogilvie Formula
   1. Ogilvie formula (longhand)
      1. Each of the steps in the Ogilvie formula explained
   2. Ogilvie formula (shorthand)
      1. Mathematical proof demonstrating a simplified Ogilvie formula
      2. Download the simplified Ogilvie mathematical proof as a PDF here
   3. Ogilvie formula (oversimplified)
      1. Learn how to perform an Ogilvie calculation in your head in 5 minutes (PDF download)
   4. Ogilvie formula (18 point rule)
      1. Read the Ogilvie “18 point rule”
      2. Download the Ogilvie “18 point rule” as a handy PDF
2. Ogilvie Case Law
   1. Ogilvie v. WCAB I (en banc) 2/3/2009
   2. Ogilvie v. WCAB II (en banc) 9/3/2009
   3. Bowden v. Sunray Termite San Jose WCAB Panel Decision ADJ4536632
      • Commissioner Miller letter dated 1/13/2010 to Defense attorney on Bowden v Sunray Termite
   4. Shini v. Pacific Coast Auto Body & Truck San Diego WCAB Panel Decision ADJ2079252 (1/25/2010)
   5. Ochoa v. UPS Ground Freight Order Denying and Report and Recommendation on Reconsideration ADJ1758338 (2/8/2010)
   6. Bertha Noriega Garcia v. Patrick L. Hinrichsen WCAB Panel Decision ADJ6721939 (3/1/2010)
3. Litigating Ogilvie
   1. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (Montana) (1962) 57 Cal.2d 589
4. Applicant Attorney Ogilvie Handbook
5. Defense Attorney Ogilvie Handbook
6. Appendix
   1. EDD Labor Market Information Division
   2. Cal. Labor Code § 4651 “Average annual earnings shall be taken as fifty-two times the average weekly earnings referred to in this chapter.”

Sample Ogilvie DFEC analysis brief, complete with citations, explanations, and exhibits

WCAB gives Ogilvie the green light

Apparently the defense attorney on Bowden v Sunray Termite wrote ex parte to the WCAB requesting the case be declared a significant panel decision. [1]

Commissioner Miller’s letter (download below) notes Bowden was a “purely fact driven case” and “is not to be a statement of legal importance to the community.”  Commissioner Miller further points out Significant Panel decisions are citable panel decisions but not binding legal precedent. [2]

What does this mean to you?

Ogilvie has not been stayed, so sharpen your #2 pencils and work on your math skills.

1. Photo courtesy of adamwilson
2. Even if the defense attorney’s request had been granted Ogilvie, as an en banc decision, would still take precedence over Bowden.

This sign is ALSO not a stay on Ogilvie

I’m still getting e-mails suggesting that Bowden v. Sunray Termite is a WCAB Panel decision staying Ogilvie. [1]  Thanks to some loyal readers, I now have a copy of this Panel decision:

1. Photo courtesy of loop_oh

Just a red herring

In a word, no.  Ogilvie has not been stayed by the WCAB, Court of Appeals, or any other court at this time. [1]

A defense attorney is circulating a letter suggesting that he got the Board to agree on Reconsideration to stay the application of Ogilvie on a case until the Supreme Court decides on the issue.

First, let me preface by saying the Board might theoretically decide to not apply the DFEC rebuttal analysis under Ogilvie for any number of reasons:

• Perhaps the defense vocational expert witness was particularly persuasive
• Perhaps the injured worker was a terrible witness
• Perhaps the Board noted a particularly disproportionate effect of Ogilvie
• Perhaps there were a lot of “motivational” issues for the injured worker
• Perhaps the injury was less than 3 years old

Secondly, even if the Board found a way to decline to apply the DFEC rebuttal analysis under Ogilvie in one circumstance, this does not stay or overrule Ogilvie.  We would need to see something from either the Court of Appeals or another[2] en banc Ogilvie decision from the WCAB.

Thirdly, while I have not seen the documentation to prove it, I have learned the Board declined to apply the DFEC rebuttal analysis under Ogilvie due to some technical issue not having much to do with the actual Ogilvie case.

So, to recap – Ogilvie has not been stayed.  If someone claims otherwise, ignore them until they produce the case.  And when you see it… send me a copy!

1. Photo courtesy of jypsygen
2. Third!!!

If you can use duct tape, you can perform an Ogilvie DFEC analysis in 5 minutes

An Ogilvie / DFEC analysis isn’t really difficult, especially when this website has a free Ogilvie / DFEC calculator.[1] The problem comes when you have to prove all the math behind those calculations.  This involves “showing your work.”

The best way to “show your work” is to take the reader through each step of the Ogilvie analysis.  I’ve prepared a sample report (generated using a new service on this website) which provides a clear and easy to understand format for “showing your work.”

The steps are basically this:

• Step 0:  2005 PDRS rating string
• Step 1: Post-Injury Earnings of Applicant
• Step 2: Post-Injury Earnings of Similarly Situated Employees
• Step 3: Calculate Proportional Earnings Loss
• Step 4: Calculate Individualized Rating to Loss Ratio
• Step 5: Compare Individualized Rating to Loss Ratio to range of ratios for the FEC ranks

For those interested, here’s a more detailed explanation of each step in an Ogilvie / DFEC analysis.

When each step of the Ogilvie / DFEC analysis is stated clearly, the reader can see every assumption, step, and perform their own calculations to verify your conclusions.  As long as the parties agree on the numbers used in an Ogilvie / DFEC calculation, they should always arrive at the same result.

Setting forth every single step of your Ogilvie / DFEC analysis lets you to spend less time arguing about the impact of Ogilvie and more time trying to get the case settled.

1. Photo courtesy of indigotimbre

• Navigating the EDD website
• Performing the Ogilvie/DFEC analysis on each rating string

If you can rate a report, you can get a PDRater DFEC Rebuttal Analysis Report in less than 2 minutes.

Where do you go from here?

• READ the PDRater DFEC Rebuttal Analysis Report frequently asked questions!
• LEARN how to calculate your own Ogilvie/DFEC  analysis or request a PDRater Report!
• DOWNLOAD a FREE SAMPLE PDRater DFEC Rebuttal Analysis Report!
• GET a PDRater DFEC Rebuttal Analysis Report right now!

An early Christmas for PDRater users!

I plan to launch a brand new calculator service tomorrow.[1]

I think you’re really really going to like it.

Want a hint?

It’s going to help you with a case that rhymes with “Schmogilvie.”

1. Photo courtesy of The School House

Q: How do you build the case for a DFEC rebuttal? A: One step at a time.

There’s a lot of conflicting information about what Judge’s are requiring to making a finding of a DFEC rebuttal under Ogilvie v. City and County of S.F.. [1]  The Board in Ogilvie II is explicit that all you need is post-injury earnings information for the injured worker and similarly situated employees and “simple mathematical calculations with that wage data” using a “non-complex formula.”[2]

Unfortunately, calling a process “simple” and “non-complex” doesn’t necessarily make it so.  Apparently some Judges are requiring some additional showing beyond wage data and “simple calculations.”

What are Judges in your area requiring?

• Just wage data and calculations?[3]
• Vocational testimony/evidence regarding earnings?
• Proof of attempts to seek employment/motivation?
• Something else?

Share your insight with an e-mail or comment.

1. Photo courtesy of eliaspunch
2. Ogilvie II, p1-2.
3. Perhaps just a print-out from PDRater?  ;)

Back to the drawing board

DOWNLOAD THE MATHEMATICAL PROOF AS A PDF!

A little while ago William S. Morris, an Applicant’s attorney, told me that the Ogilvie adjustment calculation could be further simplified. [1] He suggested the following[2] :

1. Earnings Loss[3][4]
   1. L = (PIESSE – PIEA) / PIESSE
2. Individualized Proportional Earnings Loss
   1. = (WPI / L) / 100
3. DFEC Adjustment Factor
   1. = ([1.81/a] * .1) + 1
   2. = ( (1.81 * .1)/a) + 1
   3. = (.181/a) + 1
   4. = 1 + (.181/a)
4. Ogilvie DFEC Adjusted Rating
   1. = WPI * DFEC Adjustment Factor
   2. = WPI * (1 + (.181/a) )
   3. = WPI * (1 + (.181 / Individualized Proportional Earnings Loss) )
   4. = WPI * (1 + (.181 / ( (WPI / L) / 100) ) )
   5. = WPI * (1 + (18.1 / ( (WPI / L)  ) )
   6. = WPI * (1 + (18.1 * (L/WPI) ) )
   7. = WPI + (18.1 * L)
5. Conclusion
   1. If the injured workers’ individualized proportional earnings loss is outside all of the FEC ranks, you may calculate the Ogilvie adjustment by adding (18.1*Earnings Loss) to the WPI.

The only flaw with the proofs offered by William and myself is that they are too exact.  The WCAB in Ogilvie never sets forth the exact process for performing the Ogilvie adjustment calculation – so the only official method involves rounding to different significant figures at different places.  Thus, a calculation performed in strict accordance with the WCAB in Ogilvie and through one of these mathematical proofs would differ very slightly.

What do you think? Leave a comment or drop me a line.

1. Photo courtesy of Dahveed76
2. I’m paraphrasing here
3. PIESSE = Post Injury Earnings of Similarly Situated Employees
4. PIEA = Post Injury Earnings of Applicant

Vocational experts seem to have gotten pretty well trampled by the recent Ogilvie I and Almaraz/Guzman I en banc decisions.  The Ogilvie II and Almaraz/Guzman II en banc decisions didn’t do them any favors either.

As far as I can tell, the WCAB[1] in Ogilvie II basically flip flopped on the role of vocational experts.  Under Ogilvie I at least one very entrepreneurial vocational counselor was making money performing the Ogilvie I formula adjustments and offering to testify to support their findings.[2]

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board in Ogilvie II has very explicitly stated that vocational experts are not necessary when it comes to performing the Ogilvie I formula adjustment – since it is an objective and retrospective calculation.

This leaves open the question of whether vocational expert testimony is only relevant when defending against an Ogilvie argument.

1. Well, eight of the commissioners anyhow.
2. I received more than one letter demanding agreement to a vocational counselor under Ogilvie I.

Don't cry - you had a good run

You may not want to hear this, but Ogilvie II is probably worse for Defendants than Ogilvie I.  [1]  Check out page 32:

if within five years of the date of injury it later becomes clear that the employee’s individualized proportional earnings loss is significantly higher or lower than anticipated, a party may seek to reopen the issue of permanent disability by challenging the originally used DFEC adjustment factor.

I think we can expect to see a petition to reopen on any case that settled prior to 2/3/2009. [2]

1. Photo courtesy of Lawrence Whittmore
2. February 3, 2009 is the day Ogilvie I came out.

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

Ogilvie is Affirmed, Almaraz/Guzman is not: 9/3/09

In cases where the applicant attorney submits a rebuttal to the PDR,   Vocational Experts will be needed to defend Ogilvie /FEC issues. Almarez/Guzman has been restricted and this will reduce the subjectivity we have seen and liberties taken by MD’s. No more use of data outside the guides; no more vague language. Defense should consider using a rating service to determine if reports are adhering to the guides. The DEU has cited a very high error rate. It is the responsibility of the applicant to rebut the schedule; however, the MD is the party who has been rebutting the schedule under the Almarez / Guzman “free for all”.

The PDR is rebuttable in regards to elements such as future earning capacity. As I have asserted all along, the Rand study can be used as guidance. (This is never done in any of the reports I have reviewed from other experts). I find the Rand study to be a highly valid regression analysis which can and should be used as the control group. For example, the average percentage of loss for low back body part is about 20%. The FEC modifier is Five. If a vocational evaluation can show far more or far less than this % of loss, then the schedule may be rebutted. The PDRater.com Ogilvie chart based on percentage of loss is very useful to the typical vocational evaluation which ends in a determination of percentage of loss if applicable. The Vocational Expert is not a rater and should not be producing the full string, in my opinion. The area of expertise for the Vocational Expert relates only to the determination of whether or not the FEC modifier is correctly applied.

The party who disagrees with the FEC rating must raise the issue. This will be the AA, except in a rare case of someone having greater earnings after injury instead of loss of earnings, as this would logically mean a reduction in the FEC modifier. Currently the AA has a disadvantage due to the issue of cost of hiring a VR expert. This is why the offer of a quick Ogilvie for $139.00 appeals to the AA’s who can then start the dispute. Once the defense obtains rebuttal expert, the AA can go ahead and hire a voc expert for full evaluation and expect payment. Still, it is essential to work on a retainer basis, because many carriers are just refusing to pay voc expert bills, even when ordered.

The Methodology to be used for DFEC in the original Ogilvie decision contains many exceptions regarding use of the labor market data. It is not a simple task, and the decisions blaring problem is that Ms. Ogilvie never did return to work. Therefore, estimated earnings must be used and the process is not a simple matter of looking up a wage on the EDD tables. There are wide ranges in the tables 10% to 75% tile rankings. Who will determine which is correct for the individual worker?. The estimation process will leave room for many interpretations and assertions, which will need to be supported with logical and evidentiary methodology. This is still uncharted in the workers compensation field, and more likely that not, we are using the standards of civil law in determining future earnings. The preponderance of evidence will prevail, just as the most clinically sound medical report will prevail.

We all know that you can research cashier jobs and find wages, which ranges from minimum wages to $20.00 depending on levels of responsibility. The determination of the proper use of the labor market data will remain in the hands of the VR expert in many cases. We still must know the prior earnings, work history, education, and restrictions before attempting an Ogilvie evaluation. The use of computerized transferable skill analysis may be useful tool, but should not be relied upon. There are no hard studies to prove they are correct. There are too many variables and factors which lead to employment and the data base cannot analyze every factor.

The issue of motivation and other factors are addressed in Ogilvie and upheld.

Other factors may deter return to work and are not factored into this determination. The En Banc case stated that “the employee’s post injury earnings portion of that calculation may not accurately reflect his or her true earning capacity.” (p 33 line 21-22).The en banc decision cited Montana case (Montana, supra 57 Cal.2d at pp 594-595) where “all facts relevant and helpful to making the estimate must be considered. The applicant’s ability to work, his age and health, his willingness and opportunities to work, his skill and education, the general condition of the labor market, and employment opportunities for persons similarly situated are all relevant. (p. 34 lines 3-6). ”

“Motivational or other factors may play a role in determining whether a particular employee’s post injury earnings accurately reflect his or her true post injury earning capacity.” (Ogilvie P 34 lines 9-10)

I predict that Ogilvie /FEC evaluations will be sought after when they produce high PD. Workers who can prove they have no earning capacity, and high wage earners who have suffered a 50%-75% reduction in earnings that cannot be compensated in the labor market will benefit most from the rebuttal process.

The issue of the 100% designation remains open to controversy. The use of LC 4662, particularly the mental incapacity language, has been used successfully to avoid the Ogilvie, FEC debate and simply assert the finding by the Trier of Fact as “evident” of total disability. Other factors not addressed are apportionment to non industrial issues, pre-existing educational and language skills, limited labor markets, and prior injuries. Many case laws are used to assert total disability defined in LC 4662. In Sally Perez Vs Universal Care, Inc, SCIF the panel considered the testimony of the vocational expert and concluded that because the applicant is unable to return to the workforce, the applicant has a level of disability which sustained a total loss of earning capacity and was therefore totally, permanently disabled, as defined in the rating schedule.

In these types of cases, the vocational expert addresses the totality of the workers capacity to return to work, and will be able to sue the tenants of LeBouef which finds vocational rehabilitation to be a mitigating factor. The voucher does provide opportunity for restraining, as do the many publicly funded vocational training programs. In extreme cases, it may behoove the carrier to offer rehab servicers voluntarily to avoid findings of 100% disability.

Happy Birthday PDRater!

I’ve been so busy lately I completely forgot to mention PDRater’s second birthday![1]

This site was launched on July 23, 2007.  For both of you who were using it back then, you remember it was an ugly ugly baby.

I’ve really enjoyed working on this website for the last two years.  I use the word “work,” but I don’t really mean it.  Building calculators, creating charts, and unraveling the mysteries of Ogilvie are my hobbies too.  :)

What would you like to see from this website in the coming year?  Please let me know in the comments or send me an e-mail.  I already have several (more) new calculators in the pipeline, but I’m always open to ideas.

1. Photo courtesy of rmansoorian

Even this guy can do the Ogilvie adjustment calculation in his head

If you’re using my Ogilvie calculator for situations involving a 100% earnings loss, you’re working too hard. [1]

If you have 100% earnings loss and WPI less than 45, the Ogilvie adjustment formula will always result in WPI + 18.

Not to worry.  I can make Ogilvie even easier:

1. FREE Ogilvie Mathematical Proof v0.1.
2. FREE Ogilvie Adjustment Chart v5!

The Ogilvie mathematical proof has been available for several weeks for peer review.  I’ve only received positive feedback.[2]  The above Ogilvie Adjustment Chart has been testing by myself and other workers’ compensation attorneys, but like everything else on this site is provided subject to all legal disclaimers.

Here’s a peek at what they look like:

Ogilvie Mathematical Proof

Ogilvie Adjustment Chart

1. Photo courtesy of lincolnblues
2. An anonymous source from the DWC actually called it “cool”!

I think we can dispense with the caption, just this once...

A defense attorney friend of mine called me up yesterday to say (I’m paraphrasing here), “You jackass.  Thanks to your Ogilvie proof every Applicant’s attorney I know is calling me up, gloating, and asking for 18 points on top of the whole person impairment on every case!  Why the hell did you do that???”[1]   My first thought was of my favorite quote from Swingers.[2] What I actually said was something along the lines of:

• It’s not like CAAA wouldn’t have found out about Ogilvie if it wasn’t for Jay Shergill mentioning it in a blog post.
• Nothing has changed except that now anyone can perform an Ogilvie adjustment calculation in their head.[3]
• Someone was going to prove that Ogilvie adds 18 points to the WPI in virtually all litigated workers’ compensation cases, so it might as well be me.

1. Photo courtesy of giuliomarziale
2. Just for you Ray!
3. And save $129.99 in the process
4. Hell, a permanent irreversible coma is only a WPI of 80.
5. Remember, just add 18 to the WPI!

Ogilvie for Dummies

UPDATE: DOWNLOAD THE MATHEMATICAL PROOF AS A PDF!

Get ready to stop paying people to do Ogilvie calculations, recycle your Gearheart/Gerlach handouts, and delete your Frost Excel spreadsheet.[1]  We’re about to go all “Beautiful Mind.”

Yesterday while at the Oakland WCAB an Applicant’s attorney mentioned he noticed an interesting trend in the Ogilvie formula. [2][3] He said that whenever he does an Ogilvie calculation for someone with a 100% earnings loss and a modest WPI, the WPI is always increased by 18. [4]

I ran a number of test calculations on this theory and it appeared to be right.  My calculations show that up to a WPI of 44 the increase appears to always be 18.1, but the last “0.1″ always gets rounded down.  However, appearing to be right just isn’t good enough for me.  And, because I am just truly that nerd, here’s the fully mathematical proof:

Let’s break down the calculations at the heart of Ogilvie:

1. Earnings Loss[5][6]
   1. = (PIESSE – PIEA) / PIESSE
   2. = ($1.00 – $0.00) / $1.00
   3. = $1.00 / $1.00
   4. = 1
   5. = 100%
2. Individualized Proportional Earnings Loss
   1. = (WPI / Earnings Loss) / 100
   2. = (WPI / 100% )/100
   3. = (WPI / 1) / 100
   4. = WPI / 100
   5. Thus, for any WPI less than 45 and a total loss of earnings, the Individualized Earnings Loss will always be less than 0.450 in Table A.
3. DFEC Adjustment Factor
   1. = ([1.81/a] * .1) + 1
   2. = ( (1.81 * .1)/a) + 1
   3. = (.181/a) + 1
   4. = 1 + (.181/a)
4. Ogilvie DFEC Adjusted Rating
   1. = WPI * DFEC Adjustment Factor
   2. = WPI * (1 + (.181/a) )
   3. = WPI * (1 + (.181 / Individualized Proportional Earnings Loss) )
   4. = WPI * (1 + (.181 / (WPI / 100) ) )
   5. = WPI * (1 + (.181 * 100 / WPI ) )
   6. = WPI * (1 + (18.1/ WPI ) )
   7. = WPI * ( (WPI/WPI) + (18.1/ WPI ) )
   8. = WPI * (WPI + 18.1/ WPI )
   9. = WPI * (WPI + 18.1/ WPI )
   10. = WPI + 18.1
5. Conclusion
   1. If you have an Applicant with a 100% post injury earnings loss and a WPI of 44 or less, you should rebut the FEC and arrive at an adjusted WPI that is equal to the original WPI plus 18.1.

Therefore, I propose a new Ogilvie formula that will be easy for anyone to remember:

• Step 1: If the injured worker has a 100% earnings loss and a WPI of 44 or less, add 18.1 to the WPI and round down.
• Step 2: If the injured worker has less than 100% earnings loss or a WPI of 45 or higher, go to Step 3.
• Step 3: For heaven’s sake, just make your life easier and use the calculators here at PDRater.com.

What do you think?  Leave a comment or drop me a line.

1. Sorry Jeff, Mark, Mark, and Ray!
2. Thank you “S”!  Unfortunately, he did not want to be named.
3. Man, I *wish* I could take credit for this observation.
4. Not multiplied by 18, but an addition of 18.
5. PIESSE = Post Injury Earnings of Similarly Situated Employees
6. PIEA = Post Injury Earnings of Applicant