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. [↩]

It turns out that this website is actually in the top 5% of all blogs in the WORLD.  Where did I get this incredible statistic?  The Internets, of course.[1]

While there are some 133,000,000 blogs in the world, all but 7,400,000 of them have been abandoned. [2]  Since I add a blog post on average at least once a week, I’m quite safely in the top 7.4 million blogs.  That doesn’t even count the number of updates to the permanent impairment and permanent disability calculators.

Top 5%!  I wish I had prepared a speech.

1. Photo courtesy of Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com [↩]
2. Apparently not updating a blog in four months is considered abandoning it. [↩]

Up, dates!

Unfortunately, one of the coolest features of my calculators is that some of them will give you the answer you’re looking for before you’ve even finished typing the search term.  This works with the:

• EAMS body part code finder
• EAMS document title finder
• EAMS document type finder
• EAMS registered offices search function
• DWC forms finder
• Dollar Value Calculator (“Money Chart”)
• Life Expectancy Calculator

While these are all very cool while you’re sitting at your computer, I found out (much to my dismay) that this system didn’t work at all when using these online calculators from my cell phone! [1] Well, I’ve updated the calculators to make them more compatible with more phones.[2]

Save yourself from your own workers’ compensation claim and just leave that heavy rating manual at home.

1. It has to do with cross-browser compatibility and inconsistent support for javascript events.  I doubt anyone is interested in this. [↩]
2. Photo courtesy of Hunda [↩]

Permanent disability calculators that will fit in any pocket!

I was at the San Jose WCAB on Friday.  Since recently discovering that I could run this website’s permanent disability rating calculators from my phone’s web browser, this was the first time I left my rating manual, money chart, and date wheel in the car.[1]

It was great.  That morning I used my phone to:

• Find the ADJ number associated with the legacy SJO number on my file
• Calculate an Ogilvie adjustment of a rating string
• Calculate the number days between two dates
• Perform old and new schedule ratings
• Perform a CVC (combined values chart) calculation[2]

The benefit for me is not so much that I don’t have to carry the rating manuals, dollar value charts, and date wheels.  Unlike these tools, my phone is not something I’m going to misplace or loan and never see again.

The best part is that if I want to refer back to the calculation I just performed, I can just e-mail it to myself!

1. Photo courtesy of .robbie [↩]
2. Oh, and I called my client at one point.  Ha! [↩]

Thank you for the feedback!

I was recently sent feedback about the Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal calculator on this website. [1]  Here’s how I’ve incorporated that feedback:

1. Inputs. The calculator results repeats the inputs with the results.  This ensures that the answer provided gives you enough context when showing the calculation to the other side or when you go back to review your file.
2. Email. You can now e-mail your calculations to yourself.
3. Links. I’ve added a link to the various Employment Development Department and U.S. Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics inside the calculator itself.  It doesn’t automatically obtain the information, but hopefully you will find this helpful.

There are two other issues I’m thinking about:

1. An easy way to pull up the FEC rank of a particular body part.  Its kind of a pain to look up the body part, find the FEC rank, and then enter that into the calculator.  I’m thinking ways to simplify this process.  This shouldn’t be too bad to write.
2. Rating using the Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impairment.  This one will prove to be a difficult one to write in an intuitive fashion.

How would you change these calculators?  What else would you like to see?  What do you hate about them?  Shoot me an e-mail or leave a comment!

1. Photo courtesy of biketrouble [↩]