Boot Camp
Boot Camp

The Workers’ Compensation Specialization Boot Camp on July 16 and 17 in Los Angeles was a packed house. 1  If you missed out, there’s another chance to attend on July 30 and 31 in Concord.

If you did attend the seminar in Los Angeles, I promised you a copy of all of the cases cited during the presentation on Permanent Disability.  Here’s the basic outline along with a download link for every case I cited:

  1. Permanent Disability
    1. Cal. Labor Code. Section 4660
    2. LeBoeuf v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.
    3. Costa v. Hardy
    4. Almaraz/Guzman “II”
    5. Guzman “III”
    6. Ogilvie “II”
    7. (Updated 7/29/2011!) [Download not found]
      1. Read a summary of Ogilvie III here!
    8. Argonaut Ins. v. Ind. Acc. Comm (Montana)
  2. Psychiatric Injuries
    1. Cal. Labor Code Section 3208.3
    2. Dept. of Corrections v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Garcia)
  3. Apportionment
    1. Cal. Labor Code Section 4662
    2. Cal. Labor Code Section 4663
    3. Cal. Labor Code Section 4664
    4. Cal. Labor Code Section 3213 – 3213.2
    5. Escobedo v. Marshall’s
    6. Benson v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.
    7. Brodie / Welcher
  4. Rating
    1. Blackledge v. Bank of America
    2. Policy & Procedures Manual of the WCAB
  5. (Updated 7/18/2011!) Flash Card Take Away
    1. Please register for a free account with to download this file.
    2. Seriously – free as in free.  There’s no charge, no credit card anything.
  1. Permanent Disability

    1. Cal Labor Code § 4660

    1. Description of disability

    1. 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule

      1. Rebutting the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule

      1. LeBeouf

    1. 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule

      1. Permanent Impairment

      1. Rebutting the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule

      1. Costa/Harding

      1. Almaraz/Guzman II

      1. Guzman “III”

      1. Ogilvie II

  1. Photo courtesy of jumpinjimmyjava []

What has two thumbs and loves to hear itself talk?  THIS GUY!!!
What has two thumbs and loves to hear itself talk? THIS GUY!!!

There was a great turn out this morning to the “How to Obtain an Accurate PD Rating with the AMA Guides” put on by the Workers’ Compensation Section of the State Bar.  We covered a lot of ground in just two hours, from the DEU perspective presented by Annalisa Faina and Barry Knight entitled “Anatomy of Rating”, to Mark Gearheart’s “Substantial Medical Evidence to Support a Permanent Disability Rating,” and my own presentation on “Litigating Ogilvie.”  There was a lively discussion on the state of Almaraz/Guzman, Blackledge, and Ogilvie. 12

Thanks to everyone who e-mailed me asking for the cases cited during our presentations.  I’ll be uploading them shortly.

Tonight is the “2010 Steve Jimenez Special Recognition Awards” honoring:

  • Lifetime Achievement: The Honorable Pamela Foust (Ret.)
  • Judge of the Year: The Honorable Jorja FrankHon. Jorja Frank
  • Applicant Attorney of the Year: Marc Marcus
  • Defense Attorney of the Year: Michael Marks

If you’re attending tonight, please stop me and say hello!  (I’ve got a name tag and everything)

  1. Lively as in “barely civil” []
  2. I’m kidding! []

Three doctors is probably just plain excessive.  And more than a little creepy.
Three doctors is probably just plain excessive. And more than a little creepy.

My prior record for doctor depositions was three in one month.  This was not at all intentional.  It was probably a number of factors.  I tend to take more doctor depositions than most.1 Almaraz/Guzman issues are usually best addressed during a deposition.  And, lastly it just happened to be an extra busy month.

This week I attended three doctor depositions (two set by myself, one set by a co-defendant).  I’d say that pretty well trumps three in a month.  :)

A special shout-out goes to Doctors Z, J, and C.  Thanks for putting up with me guys.  Also, special thanks to Mr. W, my co-Defendant without whom this wouldn’t have been possible.

  1. Photo courtesy of Little Miss no Name.  Photo editing – all me! []

The end for Milpitas USD?
The end for Milpitas USD?

Update: Download Milpitas United School District v. WCAB and Guzman, 6th Appellate District Court H034853, ADJ3341185, SJO0254688!

Looks like Milpitas Unified School District v. WCAB and Guzman is here to stay. 1 The 6th Appellate Court has just affirmed the WCAB’s decision in full.

Where does this leave us?  Well, under “Almaraz/Guzman II” we need to get a “strict AMA” and either side can obtain an “Almaraz/Guzman II” opinion from the doctors based upon rebuttal evidence, with the Judge being the final arbiter.

What else does this mean?  I’m probably going to break my personal record for the most doctor depositions in a single month.

Click here for more in depth coverage of Guzman!

  1. Photo courtesy of funkandjazz []

Almarez/Guzman: Full steam ahead
Almarez/Guzman: Full steam ahead

Yesterday the 6th Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal issued a Writ of Review, denied Defendants’ request for a stay, and indicated that the matter would be set for oral argument. 1  If you would rather just read what they have to say, here it goes:

Petitioner’s request for a stay is denied. Petitioner’s request for judicial notice, filed on 10/16/09 is denied. The petition for writ of review is granted as follows: Let a writ of review issue ordering the WCAB to certify & return to this court is official record in Guzman v. Milpitas Unified School District & Keenan & Associates, WCAB case No. ADJ3341185 (SJO0254688), not later than 3/25/10. Respondents may file opposition on 3/25/10. Petitioners my reply to the opposition in 20 days after the opposition is filed in this court. The matter will be placed on calendar at a time & place to be specified by court order. Any party desiring oral argument shall so inform this court in writing on 3/25/10 by completing & returning to this court the attached “request for oral argument” form (P, E, WD)

What does this mean for you?  Well, it means at least another four months of Almarez/Guzman II.

The fastest I recall a case going from the granting of a Writ of Review to to Order after oral argument was about four months.  In that case (Rollick) the Court of Appeals had basically already made up their minds about the issues and had allotted each side 10 minutes of argument.  The oral argument in that case took place about four months after the Writ was granted and Order issued almost immediately after argument.  However, the issues presented by Almarez/Guzman II are considerably more intricate.

For more analysis on this decision check out the article on WCExec!

  1. Photo courtesy of jjjohn. []