Apr
06
2009
1

Ogilvie, Almaraz, & Guzman: Reconsideration Granted! Amicus Briefs Allowed!

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

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:

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… []
      Mar
      23
      2009
      0

      How has Almaraz/Guzman changed workers’ compensation?

      AMA Guides 5th Ed.

      AMA Guides 5th Ed.

      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:

      1. Increased demands for settlement
      2. Demands for additional discovery per Almaraz/Guzman
      3. Letters to the PQME/AME requesting their opinions on impairment outside the AMA Guidelines to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition

      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.

      Here’s what Almaraz/Guzman means for workers’ compensation practitioners:

      So, remember:

      1. Whether you agree with the AMA Guides or the 2005 PDRS they’re still the law of the land and must be addressed.
      2. Whether you agree with Almaraz/Guzman, it’s still good law and must be addressed.
      3. Almaraz/Guzman does not absolve a doctor from the responsibility to generate a medical report which addresses the AMA Guides and constitutes substantial medical evidence.
      Feb
      16
      2009
      1

      Combined Values Chart

      Combined Values Chart for the 2005 PDRS

      Combined Values Chart for the 2005 PDRS

      A few weeks ago I posted about the Multiple Disabilities Table for combining disabilities with injuries prior to 2005.

      For injuries after 2005 we must turn to the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule.  When combining disabilities for injuries after 2005 there are several possible alternatives.  You can:

      1. In case you’re wondering, the chart on the right is a super-condensed version of the Combined Values Chart on pages 8-2 through 8-4. []
      2. Honestly, I don’t recommend this.  It wasn’t fun. []
      Feb
      05
      2009
      17

      Ogilvie and Almaraz, en banc

      Whats the WCAB doing NOW???

      What's the WCAB doing NOW???

      UPDATE 9/3/2009:  Download the new en banc Ogilvie II and Almaraz/Guzman II decisions here!

      Need a FREE sample Ogilvie analysis brief complete with citations?

      Some crazy stuff has happened in the last two days.  [1] Two big en banc decisions were just handed down from the WCAB. Here they are, hot off the presses and ready for downloading:

      Of the two cases, I enjoyed Ogilvie v. City and County of San Francisco much more.  This case describes to what extent the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule may be rebutted[2] and how one might go about doing this.

      Pages 22 through 32 are basically nothing but math. [3]  These pages detail the information and methodology necessary to rebut the DFEC portion of the 2005 Schedule.

      Last night I wrote a prototype calculator which will allow you to determine whether you may or may not be able to rebut the DFEC portion of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule.  This calculator would only perform the DFEC rebuttal calculations suggested in the majority opinion, since this is now the law of the land.  My plan is to test it this weekend and launch it Monday.

      However, if anyone is interested in helping me test it, I would appreciate the help.  Just drop me a line and I’ll give you the link as soon as its ready.

      In the meantime, if you want to crunch the numbers yourself (or follow along with the WCAB in Ogilvie), you will probably find Table A and Table B page 1-7 of the 2005 PDRS to be very helpful.

      FYI, there are a lot of “footnotes” in Ogilvie that reference various online documents or websites.  I’ve downloaded a copy or provided a screenshot of each of these pages for your reference:

      1. Photo courtesy of Kyle Kesselring []
      2. Basically just the DFEC portion. []
      3. Yay! []
      Jan
      14
      2009
      1

      Multiple Disabilities Table Calculator

      Multiple Disabilities Table

      Multiple Disabilities Table, easy, no?

      Right after “workers’ compensation calculator” and “permanent disability calculator,” the top search term for people coming to this website is “multiple disabilities table.”

      If you want to combine multiple disabilities for injuries before 2005,[1] you can:

      1. After 2005, you may need to use the Combined Values Chart from the 2005 PDRS. []
      2. FYI: The multiple disabilities chart in the rating schedules gives you disability increments of 5% points. []
      3. The chart on the right is from the 1988 PDRS []

      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