PDRater – PD calculators

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?  ;) [↩]

Oh, if only rehab was this easy…

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. [↩]

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 [↩]

Need more time to think about Ogilvie, Almaraz/Guzman?

Sometimes even the WCAB needs more time to think.[1]

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:

• Order Granting Reconsideration and Order Allowing Amicus Briefs on Wanda Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco, ADJ1177048, SFO 0487779, (en banc) (4/6/2009)
• Order Granting Reconsideration and Order Allowing Amicus Briefs on Mario Almaraz v. Environmental Recovery Services (a.k.a. ENVIROSERVE) and State Compensation Insurance Fund, ADJ1078163, BAK 0145426 (en banc) (4/6/2009) and Joyce Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District and Keenan & Associates, ADJ3341185, SJO 0254688 (en banc) (4/6/2009)

What does the Order Granting Reconsideration of Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman mean for you?

1. Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman are still the law.  Despite Commissioner Aghazarian’s two concurring opinions, the WCAB did not issue a stay of either Ogilvie or Almaraz/Guzman.
2. The WCAB has granted SCIF’s petition for reconsideration in Almaraz, granting reconsideration on their own motion in Guzman, and the parties’ petitions for reconsideration in Ogilvie.  They have granted reconsideration on these cases to, “afford us a sufficient opporutnity to study the issues.”[2]
3. Any interested party may file an amicus brief no later than May 1, 2009 at 5pm.

1. Photo courtesy of radiospike photography [↩]
2. Hence, the “The Thinker” reference above… [↩]