Tag: En Banc

Home › Posts tagged En Banc
Sep
23
2021
PDRater

Tagged with
Just one question. But, it’s a biggie…

This is going to sound crazy, but I’m actually really looking forward to tomorrow’s online public hearing regarding the proposed additions and amendments to its Rules of Practice and Procedure. (If you want the “TLDR” version of these proposed regs, I recently posted a summary of these changes).

  1. Board Rule § 10816 allows a party to provide notice they intend to appear electronically for any hearing upon a petition setting forth “good cause.”
    1. What constitutes good cause to appear electronically?
  2. Board Rule § 10815 sets forth the means for a party to object to a hearing or trial taking place by electronic means. There does not appear to be similar guidance under Board Rule § 10816 on requesting a live hearing or trial take place electronically.
    1. Once a timely petition has been filed, is there any additional step that party needs to take to appear electronically or is such a petition presumed granted?
    2. What if there is no response from the Board to such a notice of intention to appear electronically?
  3. Board Rule § 10816 appears to relate to only the noticing party appearing electronically – and does not appear to require the hearing be conducted electronically for all parties. Prior to the pandemic the Board utilized the CourtCall system to permit one party to appear telephonically, irrespective of the preferences of other parties, and subject to judicial discretion.
    1. Will the Board conduct hearings where some, but not all parties, are appearing electronically?
  4. The WCAB decision “In Re: COVID-19 State of Emergency En Banc (Misc. No. 260),” 3/18/2020, suspended the requirement for witnesses and live signatures to settlement agreements as set forth in Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10500(b)(6) and DWC-CA forms 10214(c)-(e). Although parts of this decision relating to different regulations have been rescinded over the last 18 months, this particular change as it relates to allowing electronic signatures and witnesses has not been altered.
    1. Will the WCAB En Banc Misc. No. 260 removing the requirement for live signatures and witnesses be made permanent or formalized in a regulation?

What questions do you have?

Photo courtesy of Benjamin Reay

Sep
16
2009
2005 PDRS, Case Law, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Oh, if only rehab was this easy...
Oh, if only rehab was this easy…

Vocational experts seem to have gotten pretty well trampled by the recent Ogilvie I and Almaraz/Guzman I en banc decisions.  The Ogilvie II and Almaraz/Guzman II en banc decisions didn’t do them any favors either.

As far as I can tell, the WCAB1 in Ogilvie II basically flip flopped on the role of vocational experts.  Under Ogilvie I at least one very entrepreneurial vocational counselor was making money performing the Ogilvie I formula adjustments and offering to testify to support their findings.2

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board in Ogilvie II has very explicitly stated that vocational experts are not necessary when it comes to performing the Ogilvie I formula adjustment – since it is an objective and retrospective calculation.

This leaves open the question of whether vocational expert testimony is only relevant when defending against an Ogilvie argument.

  1. Well, eight of the commissioners anyhow. [↩]
  2. I received more than one letter demanding agreement to a vocational counselor under Ogilvie I. [↩]
Sep
3
2009
Almaraz / Guzman, Case Law, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , ,

The Board is back!
The Board is back!

Need a FREE sample Ogilvie analysis brief complete with citations?

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board is back with their en banc decisions on Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman after reconsideration. 1  Download the Ogilvie/Almaraz/Guzman decisions all in one place:

Each of these four is about 50 pages.  Read them carefully, there will be a test later.

  1. Photo courtesy of arturodonate [↩]
Jun
27
2009
2005 PDRS, Almaraz / Guzman, AMA Guides, Articles, Case Law, DFEC Rebuttal, Ogilvie, Vocational Rehabilitation, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Always room for guest articles at PDRater!
Always room for guest articles at PDRater!

Emily Tincher has recently provided a vocational expert’s perspective on the Ogilvie and Almaraz/Guzman decisions.

Have you got an article on workers’ compensation you’d like to see published?  Drop me a line and let me know.1

Thanks Emily!

P.S. For those of who keeping score at home, this is my 200th post!!!  That’s 200 posts in 357 days or roughly a post every 1.7 days.

  1. Photo courtesy of Stephen Cummings [↩]
Jun
12
2009
Case Law, PDRater, Vocational Rehabilitation, Website Updates, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

WCAB: Throwing babies out with the bathwater since 1965
The WCAB: Throwing babies out with the bathwater since 1965

For context, its best to see the prior post about the WCAB’s Weiner v. Ralph’s (en banc) decision.  There’s even a link to the Weiner v. Ralphs (en banc) decision for download – just so you can play along at home.

The question in the title of the post is really a question about the WCAB’s rationale – not their end legal justification behind Weiner.  I believe the Weiner case hints that the WCAB is going to go the other way and uphold their rulings in Almaraz/Guzman and Ogilvie.

However, I think the WCAB’s rationale for ending vocational rehabilitation was because of the potential for enormous retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance awards at the temporary total disability rate outside the cap (VRTD).12

  1. Photo courtesy of Stephane Raymond [↩]
  2. You see, I’m suggesting that the bathwater is VRTD and the baby itself is vocational rehabilitation.  Kinda kills the metaphor, eh? [↩]
Jun
11
2009
Case Law, PDRater, Vocational Rehabilitation, Website Updates, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Weiner v. Ralphs spells the end of rehab
Weiner v. Ralphs spells the end of rehab

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board recently solicited amicus briefs regarding the Weiner v. Ralphs case.  After review of the amicus briefs on the topic of the repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5 and vocational rehabilitation, the WCAB has just issued their en banc opinion.1

Download a copy of Weiner v. Ralphs (en banc) right here:

Obviously, you’ll need to read and interpret Weiner v. Ralph’s for yourself.  Here’s the Board’s own summary:

  1. The repeal of section 139.5 terminated any rights to vocational rehabilitation benefits or services pursuant to orders or awards that were not final before January 1, 2009
  2. A saving clause was not adopted to protect vocational rehabilitation rights in cases still pending on or after January 1, 2009
  3. The vocational rehabilitation statutes that were repealed in 2003 do not continue to function as “ghost statutes” on or after January 1, 2009
  4. Effective January 1, 2009, the WCAB lost jurisdiction over non-vested and inchoate vocational rehabilitation claims, but the WCAB continues to have jurisdiction under sections 5502(b)(3) and 5803 to enforce or terminate vested rights; and
  5. Subject matter jurisdiction over non-vested and inchoate vocational rehabilitation claims cannot be conferred by waiver, estoppel, stipulation, or consent.

What does Weiner v. Ralph’s mean to you?

  1. Vocational rehabilitation is gone unless there is a “vested” right by way order that became final prior to 1/1/2009.
  2. If you already have a final order for vocational rehabilitation, the WCAB can still hear a dispute.
  1. Photo courtesy of larryfishkorn [↩]
Apr
14
2009
Case Law, PDRater, Vocational Rehabilitation, Website Updates, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

The WCAB is soliciting suggestions on vocational rehabilitation
The WCAB is soliciting input on vocational rehabilitation

The WCAB has just issued an “Order Allowing Amicus Briefs” (en banc) in the Weiner v. Ralph’s Company case.1 The Weiner case is about the effect of the legislature’s repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5 as of January 1, 2009.  The repeal of this statute may have the effect of terminating all rights to vocational rehabilitation.

For the curious, you can download a copy of the Order Allowing Amicus Briefs (en banc) here:

The Board is allowing until May 11, 2009 for any interested party to file their own amicus brief on these Weiner vocational rehabiltiation issues.

  1. Photo courtesy of Mathoov [↩]
Apr
6
2009
1997 PDRS, 2005 PDRS, Almaraz / Guzman, AMA Guides, DFEC Rebuttal, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Workers Compensation Resources

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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… [↩]
      Apr
      1
      2009
      2005 PDRS, Calculators, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Partial Disability, Technobabble, Website Updates, Workers Compensation Resources

      Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

      Thank you for the feedback!
      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 [↩]
      Mar
      28
      2009
      1997 PDRS, 2005 PDRS, Almaraz / Guzman, Average Weekly Wage, Business, Calculators, COLA, Combined Values Chart, EAMS, Free, Life Pension, Ogilvie, PDRater, Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, Permanent Partial Disability, Permanent Total Disability, PHP, SAWW, Subscription Features, Technobabble, Temporary Partial Disability, Temporary Total Disability, Wage Loss, Website Updates, Wordpress, Workers Compensation Resources

      Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

      Getting an upgrade!
      Getting an upgrade!

      Late last week a user asked for a new feature.1  He wanted to be able to perform the Ogilvie DFEC rebuttal calculation and have the results e-mailed to him.2 Well, I built it!3

      To e-mail yourself a calculation, perform the calculation as normal.  When the website returns your calculation, it will say “E-mail Me!”  Just click that button and it will send an e-mail to the address you used to register for this website.

      However, here’s the cool part:  I’ve installed this new e-mail system into every calculator! 4 No more having to copy and paste!  Just click one button and your calculation will show up in your inbox!5

      Although I intend this to be a paid-subscription-only feature, I am going to leave it open for all users while I get some feedback.  So, what do you think?  Please leave a comment or shoot me an e-mail!

      1. Thanks Dennis! [↩]
      2. Photo courtesy of Vernhart [↩]
      3. Why, what did you do with your Saturday morning? [↩]
      4. I haven’t installed it in some of the EAMS lookup functions [↩]
      5. If you filled in the boxes for Applicant, WCAB #, and File #, it will include this information in your e-mail as well.  This is only for your convenience and not a requirement. [↩]