Oct
12
2009
1

Ogilvie Calculations Made Simple, II

Back to the drawing board

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 []
Sep
03
2009
1

Response to WCAB decisions regarding Ogilvie, Almarez/Guzman

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.


To contact Emily Tincher, call 415 389 8953 or email her at Emily.tincher@cascadedisability.com.

Emily Tincher is a vocational expert, in practice over 25 years throughout California, as a specialist in workers compensation. She has a Masters in Vocational Rehabilitation Counseling from the CRC certified program at University of Southern California, and was admitted to the American Board of Vocational Experts as a Fellow.
Jul
17
2009
5

Ogilvie Calculations Made Dead Simple

Ogilvie for Dummies

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 []

Use of this site constitutes agreement to its Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Legal Disclaimer.
Copyright 2007 - 2017 - PDRater – PD calculators and Jay Shergill
Powered by WordPress | Aeros Theme | TheBuckmaker.com WordPress Themes