Sep
09
2009
1

Is Ogilvie II worse for Defendants than Ogilvie I?

Dont cry - you had a good run

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. []
Sep
04
2009
1

Ogilvie II, Almaraz/Guzman II – Reader Digest Versions

Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman - lets cut to the chase

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. []
Jun
24
2009
5

New Ogilvie Calculator Feature!

PDRater workers compensation calculators - so easy a cat can use them!

PDRater workers' compensation calculators - so easy your cat can use them!

What’s that?  You haven’t memorized ALL of the FEC ranks to go with each of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule body parts? [1]

Why didn’t you say so?   (Actually, someone did ask for an easy way to look up the FEC ranks back on April 1).

I’ve been working on an easy way to allow a user to look up and quickly insert the FEC rank for the affected body part.  I finally got around to building it a few days ago and launched it this morning.  Please give it a shot and let me know what you think.

Here’s all you need to do to perform your very own Ogilvie calculation:

  1. Go to the permanent disability calculator page. (If you haven’t already signed up for free, this is a good time.)
  2. Click “Ogilvie” Diminished Future Earning Capacity Calculator
  3. Type in the FEC rank OR click “FEC Rank (1-8)” and click on the injured body part.  It will look up the FEC rank and insert it for you.
  4. Type in the “Whole Person Impairment”
  5. Type in the “Post Injury Earnings of Applicant”
  6. Type in the “Post Injury Earnings of Similarly Situated Employees” OR click the link to obtain some information from the EDD Labor Market Information Division (LMID) and US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

If you can think of a way for me to make this calculator even easier, please let me know. [2]

  1. You’ve only had four years, right? []
  2. Photo courtesy of Vicki’s Pics []

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