1. Ogilvie Formula
   1. Ogilvie formula (longhand)
      1. Each of the steps in the Ogilvie formula explained
   2. Ogilvie formula (shorthand)
      1. Mathematical proof demonstrating a simplified Ogilvie formula
      2. Download the simplified Ogilvie mathematical proof as a PDF here
   3. Ogilvie formula (oversimplified)
      1. Learn how to perform an Ogilvie calculation in your head in 5 minutes (PDF download)
   4. Ogilvie formula (18 point rule)
      1. Read the Ogilvie “18 point rule”
      2. Download the Ogilvie “18 point rule” as a handy PDF
2. Ogilvie Case Law
   1. Ogilvie v. WCAB I (en banc) 2/3/2009
   2. Ogilvie v. WCAB II (en banc) 9/3/2009
   3. Bowden v. Sunray Termite San Jose WCAB Panel Decision ADJ4536632
      • Commissioner Miller letter dated 1/13/2010 to Defense attorney on Bowden v Sunray Termite
   4. Shini v. Pacific Coast Auto Body & Truck San Diego WCAB Panel Decision ADJ2079252 (1/25/2010)
   5. Ochoa v. UPS Ground Freight Order Denying and Report and Recommendation on Reconsideration ADJ1758338 (2/8/2010)
   6. Bertha Noriega Garcia v. Patrick L. Hinrichsen WCAB Panel Decision ADJ6721939 (3/1/2010)
3. Litigating Ogilvie
   1. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com. (Montana) (1962) 57 Cal.2d 589
4. Applicant Attorney Ogilvie Handbook
5. Defense Attorney Ogilvie Handbook
6. Appendix
   1. EDD Labor Market Information Division
   2. Cal. Labor Code § 4651 “Average annual earnings shall be taken as fifty-two times the average weekly earnings referred to in this chapter.”

Sample Ogilvie DFEC analysis brief, complete with citations, explanations, and exhibits

Old Town Salinas

I’ve got a hearing at the WCAB in Salinas this morning.

If you’re around this morning, stop me and say hello!

Ye olde cell fone

Here’s some trivia for you.  I have the world’s crappiest cell phone.  I get a lot of flack for my cell phone.  It’s beat to hell, got a cracked screen, dented, scratched, and it’s ridiculously old.

How old?  Well, March 15 will be the six year anniversary of the FCC’s acceptance.  My cell carrier has been sending me ever more frantic flyers for the latest cell phones for about four years now.  It’s gotten pretty pathetic, really.

Unfortunately my trusty phone is now taking it’s last gasps and I need to find a replacement.  :(

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.

Driving under the influence

Yesterday I was driving back from Modesto and I noticed a CHP officer out of the corner of my eye. [1]  My first instinct is always to double check my speed.

However, yesterday afternoon I noticed this officer was on his cell, left elbow propped up on the edge of the window, yakking away, while tailgating a semi in the slow lane.

Not wanting to get pulled over for driving under the influence of irony, I didn’t take a picture with my phone.

BTW, I’ve got to be in San Francisco this afternoon – stop me and say hello!

1. Photo courtesy of OregonDOT

Free pass

Yesterday I had an appearance in San Jose and then another up in San Rafael.  From San Jose I drove up through San Francisco, northbound over the Golden Gate Bridge, to my appearance, then back over to Contra Costa County via the Richmond Bridge.[1]

Wait for it…

The Golden Gate is only toll southbound and the Richmond is only toll westbound.  I traveled over two bridges and didn’t pay a single toll!

1. Photo courtesy of worldsurfer

Also not a valid permanent disability rating schedule for 2009

I’ve been getting a lot of questions about the Draft 2009 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule.  There is no 2009 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule. [1]

Yes, yes, I know we’re supposed to have a new schedule per 8 CCR 9805, but the proposed draft 2009 PDRS was never approved.

Overall, the draft 2009 Permanent Disability Schedule doesn’t change much from the existing 2005 schedule.  The biggest change is in the application of the FEC rank adjustment.  Instead of increasing permanent disability between 10% and 40%, the proposed FEC rank system would increase permanent disability between 20% and 50%.  Additionally, the proposal suggested juggling the various ranks among the body regions.  If you’re curious about the exact proposed changes, the DWC Newsline gave a really great overview back on May 9, 2008.

Here’s the take-away:

• The 2009 Draft Permanent Disability Rating Schedule was not approved.
• The only official schedule for injuries on or after 1/1/2005 is the current 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule.
• The DEU’s own webpage, updated on 10/2009 as of the date of this posting, doesn’t even offer a link to the 2009 draft schedule.

1. Photo courtesy of wenzday01

WCAB gives Ogilvie the green light

Apparently the defense attorney on Bowden v Sunray Termite wrote ex parte to the WCAB requesting the case be declared a significant panel decision. [1]

Commissioner Miller’s letter (download below) notes Bowden was a “purely fact driven case” and “is not to be a statement of legal importance to the community.”  Commissioner Miller further points out Significant Panel decisions are citable panel decisions but not binding legal precedent. [2]

What does this mean to you?

Ogilvie has not been stayed, so sharpen your #2 pencils and work on your math skills.

1. Photo courtesy of adamwilson
2. Even if the defense attorney’s request had been granted Ogilvie, as an en banc decision, would still take precedence over Bowden.

This sign is ALSO not a stay on Ogilvie

I’m still getting e-mails suggesting that Bowden v. Sunray Termite is a WCAB Panel decision staying Ogilvie. [1]  Thanks to some loyal readers, I now have a copy of this Panel decision:

1. Photo courtesy of loop_oh

Just a red herring

In a word, no.  Ogilvie has not been stayed by the WCAB, Court of Appeals, or any other court at this time. [1]

A defense attorney is circulating a letter suggesting that he got the Board to agree on Reconsideration to stay the application of Ogilvie on a case until the Supreme Court decides on the issue.

First, let me preface by saying the Board might theoretically decide to not apply the DFEC rebuttal analysis under Ogilvie for any number of reasons:

• Perhaps the defense vocational expert witness was particularly persuasive
• Perhaps the injured worker was a terrible witness
• Perhaps the Board noted a particularly disproportionate effect of Ogilvie
• Perhaps there were a lot of “motivational” issues for the injured worker
• Perhaps the injury was less than 3 years old

Secondly, even if the Board found a way to decline to apply the DFEC rebuttal analysis under Ogilvie in one circumstance, this does not stay or overrule Ogilvie.  We would need to see something from either the Court of Appeals or another[2] en banc Ogilvie decision from the WCAB.

Thirdly, while I have not seen the documentation to prove it, I have learned the Board declined to apply the DFEC rebuttal analysis under Ogilvie due to some technical issue not having much to do with the actual Ogilvie case.

So, to recap – Ogilvie has not been stayed.  If someone claims otherwise, ignore them until they produce the case.  And when you see it… send me a copy!

1. Photo courtesy of jypsygen
2. Third!!!

Double dippin' done right

Some commentators have suggested that the recent Duncan v. WCAB (X.S.) case creates a “double dip” for injured workers entitled to permanent total disability benefits. [1]  While I would take issue with much of that commentary, I would agree that permanent total disability benefits are affected by changes in the state average weekly wage twice under Duncan v. WCAB (X.S.).  Of the four benefits in California workers’ compensation system that are affected by changes in the SAWW, only permanent total disability benefits are affected twice.

It took the patient guidance of a very smart friend to help me to understand how this works:

• When determining the proper starting rate for a permanent total disability case, you must first turn to Cal. Labor Code § 4453(a)(10).  This statute dictates that the limits (as in the statutory minimum and statutory maximum limits) are to be increased by the increase in the state average weekly wage (or SAWW).
• However, according to Cal. Labor Code § 4659(c) as interpreted by Duncan v. WCAB (X.S.), the benefit rates themselves are then increased by the increase in the state average weekly wage (or SAWW).

Is it “double dipping” to have both the upper/lower limits and benefit rates increased by the SAWW?

Perhaps, but that’s what the two statutes say and what the Court of Appeals has decided.

1. Photo courteys of _Bonnie_

Getting a handle on the SAWW

Four benefits in California workers’ compensation are affected by changes in the state average weekly wage (or SAWW).[1]

1. Temporary total disability benefits
   • The maximum and minimum benefit rates can be affected by the SAWW.
   • “Commencing on January 1, 2007, and each January 1 thereafter, the limits specified in this paragraph shall be increased by an amount equal to the percentage increase in the state average weekly wage as compared to the prior year.”  Cal. Labor Code § 4453(a)(10).
2. Life pension benefits
   • The statutory life pension rates are now increased by the SAWW as directed by the recent Duncan v. WCAB (X.S.) case.
   • “For injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2003, an employee who becomes entitled to receive a life pension or total permanent disability indemnity as set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b) shall have that payment increased annually commencing on January 1, 2004, and each January 1 thereafter, by an amount equal to the percentage increase in the “state average weekly wage” as compared to the prior year.”  Cal. Labor Code § 4659(c).
3. Permanent total disability benefits
   • First, the minimum and maximum limits for permanent total disability benefits are increased, then the benefit rates themselves are increased.
   • “Commencing on January 1, 2007, and each January 1 thereafter, the limits specified in this paragraph shall be increased by an amount equal to the percentage increase in the state average weekly wage as compared to the prior year.”  Cal. Labor Code § 4453(a)(10).
   • “For injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2003, an employee who becomes entitled to receive a life pension or total permanent disability indemnity as set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b) shall have that payment increased annually commencing on January 1, 2004, and each January 1 thereafter, by an amount equal to the percentage increase in the “state average weekly wage” as compared to the prior year.”  Cal. Labor Code § 4659(c).
4. Death benefits
   • “A death benefit in all cases shall be paid in installments in the same manner and amounts as temporary total disability indemnity would have to be made to the employee, unless the appeals board otherwise orders.” Cal. Labor Code § 4702(b).

Did I just describe two increases to the permanent total disability benefit rate?  Huh, so I did.

Tune in tomorrow for more on Duncan v. WCAB, COLA’s, and SAWW increases!

1. Photo courtesy of Sean Venn

Putting some teeth in the SAWW

We’ve all seen charts with the State Average Weekly Wage (“SAWW”) increases printed on them.[1] But, how useful are these when you’re dealing with an opposing counsel who won’t accept your chart or calculations based on that chart?

It sure would be nice to have all the SAWW information from the Division of Workers’ Compensation all in once place.  Well, it just so happens I’ve already done this for you.

Here is a copy of every DWC Newsline from 2003 through 2009 with information on every SAWW increase from 2004 through 2010, all ready to go in one handy-dandy PDF.

Share and enjoy!

More on Duncan v. WCAB, COLA’s, and SAWW increases tomorrow!

(Don’t forget to download a copy of Duncan v. WCAB here!)

1. Photo courtesy of Aeioux

Mini version of Duncan v. WCAB

In the spirit of my recent post summing up Ogilvie II and Almaraz/Guzman II in just three sentences each, I bring you a summary of the recent Duncan v. WCAB decision in just one sentence:[1]

The COLAs found in section 4659, subdivision (c) should be applied to life pensions or total permanent disability compensation as from January 1, 2004.[2]

Yes, that’s really it.  The Duncan decision consists mostly of background and discussion.  The actual decision is basically that one line above.

Come back tomorrow for more information about SAWW increases, COLA calculations, and more!

(Don’t forget to download a copy of Duncan v. WCAB here!)

1. Photo courtesy of MarkAllanson
2. Duncan v. WCAB, page 18.

If you can use duct tape, you can perform an Ogilvie DFEC analysis in 5 minutes

An Ogilvie / DFEC analysis isn’t really difficult, especially when this website has a free Ogilvie / DFEC calculator.[1] The problem comes when you have to prove all the math behind those calculations.  This involves “showing your work.”

The best way to “show your work” is to take the reader through each step of the Ogilvie analysis.  I’ve prepared a sample report (generated using a new service on this website) which provides a clear and easy to understand format for “showing your work.”

The steps are basically this:

• Step 0:  2005 PDRS rating string
• Step 1: Post-Injury Earnings of Applicant
• Step 2: Post-Injury Earnings of Similarly Situated Employees
• Step 3: Calculate Proportional Earnings Loss
• Step 4: Calculate Individualized Rating to Loss Ratio
• Step 5: Compare Individualized Rating to Loss Ratio to range of ratios for the FEC ranks

For those interested, here’s a more detailed explanation of each step in an Ogilvie / DFEC analysis.

When each step of the Ogilvie / DFEC analysis is stated clearly, the reader can see every assumption, step, and perform their own calculations to verify your conclusions.  As long as the parties agree on the numbers used in an Ogilvie / DFEC calculation, they should always arrive at the same result.

Setting forth every single step of your Ogilvie / DFEC analysis lets you to spend less time arguing about the impact of Ogilvie and more time trying to get the case settled.

1. Photo courtesy of indigotimbre

• Navigating the EDD website
• Performing the Ogilvie/DFEC analysis on each rating string

If you can rate a report, you can get a PDRater DFEC Rebuttal Analysis Report in less than 2 minutes.

Where do you go from here?

• READ the PDRater DFEC Rebuttal Analysis Report frequently asked questions!
• LEARN how to calculate your own Ogilvie/DFEC  analysis or request a PDRater Report!
• DOWNLOAD a FREE SAMPLE PDRater DFEC Rebuttal Analysis Report!
• GET a PDRater DFEC Rebuttal Analysis Report right now!

An early Christmas for PDRater users!

I plan to launch a brand new calculator service tomorrow.[1]

I think you’re really really going to like it.

Want a hint?

It’s going to help you with a case that rhymes with “Schmogilvie.”

1. Photo courtesy of The School House

T'was the night before Christmas... and the check still had not arrived.

I was waiting on two attorneys walking through a settlement last week while at the Oakland Board.  Applicant’s counsel had added some unusual language. [1] The Judge read it aloud to the hearing room:

Defendants shall make payment before Christmas.

Oh, and… the Applicant was Jewish.  :)

1. Photo courtesy of Joriel “Joz” Jimenez

It looks like someone took a SAWW to that COLA!!!

You’re probably just here to download the latest workers’ compensation case about the Cost of Living Adjustment and State Average Weekly Wage increases. [1][2] I’m not going to hold you in suspense – here’s the download link:

Obviously, you need to read the entire decision for yourself.  Here’s my oversimplification of the case:

Whenever the injured worker is due life pension payments for injuries on or after 1/1/2003, you calculate those benefits, whenever they are due, by increasing them according to the yearly increases in the state average weekly wage starting on 1/1/2004.

If some of this seems familiar, its because this is the same case as XYZZXSJO2 which came out back in February 2009.   I had suggested back in February that the effect of the COLA increases on life pension payments today would be to increase them some 44% or so.

Still having trouble understanding the impact of this case?  Well, you could try my XYZZXSJO2 calculator to tell you what the life pension rate should be during a given year.  (Remember, this just tells you the rate – it is not a commutation calculator.  These are still in the works).

What are your thoughts on Duncan v. WCAB?

1. Photo courtesy of Sister72
2. I refuse to apologize for that pun.

Q: How do you build the case for a DFEC rebuttal? A: One step at a time.

There’s a lot of conflicting information about what Judge’s are requiring to making a finding of a DFEC rebuttal under Ogilvie v. City and County of S.F.. [1]  The Board in Ogilvie II is explicit that all you need is post-injury earnings information for the injured worker and similarly situated employees and “simple mathematical calculations with that wage data” using a “non-complex formula.”[2]

Unfortunately, calling a process “simple” and “non-complex” doesn’t necessarily make it so.  Apparently some Judges are requiring some additional showing beyond wage data and “simple calculations.”

What are Judges in your area requiring?

• Just wage data and calculations?[3]
• Vocational testimony/evidence regarding earnings?
• Proof of attempts to seek employment/motivation?
• Something else?

Share your insight with an e-mail or comment.

1. Photo courtesy of eliaspunch
2. Ogilvie II, p1-2.
3. Perhaps just a print-out from PDRater?  ;)