Could THIS be the elusive Ogilvie formula?
Could THIS be the elusive Ogilvie formula?

So, here’s the deal:  I want to build the absolute most comprehensive suite of calculators and tools for workers’ compensation professionals.  ((Why?  Some people have wacky hobbies.  Maybe you build hockey arenas out of toothpicks.  I build workers’ compensation calculators and give them away for free.  If it will put you at ease, I hope to make money from advertising in the future.))  I also want your help to making them better.

In the last few days several people have sent me questions about the Ogilvie DFEC workers’ compensation calculator: ((Photo courtesy of nerissa’s ring))

  1. Is it possible to get an Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impairment above 100%?
    • I believe it might be theoretically possible to achieve an adjusted whole person impairment above 100% using the Ogilvie DFEC formula.  I could easily include a small variation on the calculation that would prevent it from exceeding 100, but I have not done so because I wanted to replicate the the formulas set forth in Ogilvie as exactly as possible.
  2. Why can’t I use post-injury earnings of $0.00?  What if they have no earnings at all?
    • That’s an extremely valid point.  If you try to use a post-injury earnings of “zero”, it will cause division by “zero” which is not a mathematically legal operation.  Try post-injury earnings of $1.00 or $0.01.  Doing so will give you an answer VERY close to what you need.  ((I know it has a less than friendly error message about this. I’ll see what I can do about fixing that.))
  3. When do you round each calculation when performing the Ogilvie DFEC calculation?
    • The WCAB en banc in Ogilvie rounds to three decimal places at one step and to four decimal places at a second step.  The only way we know what they actually did is by extrapolating from the examples in the decision – they never actually state “round to four significant digits here, round to three significant digits there.”  I have rounded exactly as they did in their examples.
    • At the end of the day, there are two ways to perform the Ogilvie DFEC calculation:  the exact way the WCAB did it (sometimes four, sometimes three decimal places) and the way they probably intended to do it (four decimal places until the end).  I made the judgment call to use the formula as they performed it, warts and all.
    • Why did I choose to round as the WCAB did?  I think it is more defensible to calculate exactly as the Board did, rather than as I think the Board should have calculated.
  4. How do you put the Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impairment into the rating calculator?
    • At this point, you can’t use a different FEC Rank or an Ogilvie DFEC adjustment factor in the 2005 PDRS rating calculator on this site.  In order to accomodate this, I would need to either rewrite the entire calculator or write a new calculator.  One other possibility is that I could modify the Ogilvie DFEC calculation to provide one extra line of information – where it “runs the FEC numbers backwards.”
    • Let’s take this example:  Suppose the body part FEC rank is 1 and whole person impairment is 10.  The normal FEC adjusted whole person impairment would be 11.  Let’s suppose after applying the Ogilvie DFEC formula it turns out you should have an FEC rank of 8 instead.  This would give you an Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impariment of 14%.  I could write a modification of the current Ogilvie DFEC calculator to put 14% into the FEC Rank chart and look up what whole person impairment you would need with an FEC rank of 1 to arrive at 14%.  Would you find this a helpful interim fix?  Please let me know by sending me an e-mail.
  5. Jay, why in the world did the Ogilvie DFEC calculator reference “standard disability”?  Shouldn’t it say “whole person impairment”?
    1. You’re totally correct.  I’ve fixed this.  Mea culpa.

Here’s my request for your help.  In order to make an Ogilvie calculation valid, you need to put in valid post-injury earnings of similarly situated employees.  The WCAB in Ogilvie suggests several possible sources: ((I’ve copied the links directly from Ray Frost‘s Ogilvie spreadsheet/calculator.  Ray has been kind enough to allow me the use of his extensive work restrictions lists.  So, thanks Ray!))

What do you use for post-injury earnings of similarly situated employees?  If I had a better idea where people were looking it is possible that I might be able to automate the inclusion of this informaiton as well.  Please drop me a line and let me know.   If there is a general consensus, I’ll look into the possiblity of having this informaiton automatically imported from an external website.

So Many Calclators, So Little Time
So Many Calclators, So Little Time

After some additional testing and feedback, I have launched the Ogilvie Calculator aka DFEC Calculator aka Diminished Future Earning Capacity Calculator. ((Photo courtesy of teclasorg.))

To all of my friendly beta-testers:  Thank you!

So, what are you waiting for?  Signing up for this website is totally free and takes 30 seconds.  Log in, give it a whirl and let me know what you think.

How to build a calculator: Its like smashing a calculator - only in reverse
How to build a calculator: It's like smashing a calculator - only in reverse

I’m going to delay the launch of the Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal calculator for a day or two.  ((Photo courtesy of mhuang))  I believe it works just fine, but I would like to test it a little more.  This said, I will grant anyone who is interested access to this calculator.

Why the delay?  Well…

The interesting thing about taking apart a set of calculations is that you find all sorts of “hidden steps” to the calculation.  The majority in Ogilvie does a respectible job of going through the steps of this new formula and even gives several examples.

When performing most calculations one will need to round numbers at some point.  However, rounding almost invariably takes place at the very end.  In the case of the Ogilvie calculations, it appears that the WCAB rounds various figures throughout the calculation.

Even though the DFEC rebuttal calculator was giving correct answers, the fourth or fifth decimal places on some intermediary figures occasionally did not coming out right.  It took me a little while to track down all the spots where the WCAB was implicitly rounding their figures (and to what decimal place!).

I am fairly confident the calculator will work without a hitch, but I’m going to test it a little more before I make it available to the public.  If you’re interested in testing this Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal calculator, please drop me a line and let me know.

If you’re not a registered user for this website, its free to sign up and free to use all the workers’ compensation calculators.  Seriously, free as in free!

Professor, tell me more of this DFEC rebuttal calculator...
Professor, tell me more of this DFEC rebuttal calculator...

Earlier today I installed an Ogilvie v. City and County of SF DFEC Rebuttal calculator into the free workers’ compensation calculators page on this website.  ((Photo courtesy of Draggin)) ((I had this EXACT same calculator as a kid!)) ((Why, how did you spend your Friday night?)) For the moment it is only available to people who have signed up for this website and asked to be a beta tester.  If all goes well, I’ll flip a switch and make it available to the public on Monday morning.

At the moment it requires four pieces of information:

  1. FEC Rank (re: body part in question)
  2. Standard disability (re: body part in question)
  3. Post-injury earnings for Applicant
  4. Post-injury earnings for employees similarly situated to Applicant

Once you add in that information, click “Calculate” and it should crunch through the formula and give you a response.  The WCAB in Ogilvie suggested several possible outcomes to this formula:

  • The “Individualized Loss Ratio” for the injured worker is the same or within the range for the current FEC Rank for the affected body part.  In this circumstance, the 2005 DFEC has not been rebutted.
  • The “Individualized Loss Ratio” for the injured worker is within the range of one of the other seven FEC Ranks.  Here, the DFEC portion of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule might be rebutted.
  • The “Individualized Loss Ratio” for the injured worker is outside the range of all eight FEC Ranks.  In this circumstance, you could end up with a new FEC Adjustment Factor much higher or lower than any FEC Adjustment Factor associated with the eight FEC Ranks.  Here, the DFEC portion of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule might be rebutted.

Obviously, there are innumerable factors that go into considerations of whether a Judge (or the WCAB) would find the DFEC portion of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule to be rebutted.  This calculation and the information relied upon in performing this calculation cannot be taken as a guarranteed method of rebutting the DFEC portion of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule.

If you’re not a registered user for this website, its free to sign up and free to use all the workers’ compensation calculators.  That’s right: free as in free.

Need help with a workers compensation calculator?
Need help with a workers' compensation calculator?

I put out the call for help testing my Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal calculator and got a bite!  ((Photo courtesy of Joy of the Mundane.)) I wrote it two days ago and refined it a little bit last night. ((Because I’m a total workers’ compensation nerd.))

If anyone else is interested in helping test this Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal calculator, please drop me a line and let me know.

The ideal tester is someone who:

  1. Has read Ogilvie and understands how to do the Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal calculations
  2. Is willing to use the Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal calculator this weekend
  3. Is willing to e-mail me with feedback this weekend so I can launch it on Monday to the public

If you’re not a registered user for this website, its free to sign up and free to use all the workers’ compensation calculators.

You heard me, free as in free.