Benson Rule (California)

Ask your AMA Guide questions to Dr. Chris Brigham. Christopher R. Brigham, MD is recognized as the nation's leading expert, author, and trainer on the Guides (www.impairment.com). We have expanded this category to include other rating questions under both new and old schedules.

Benson Rule (California)

Postby rosellavera on Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:02 pm

psych CT = 7%; specific = 17%; left knee rates to 5% for specific DOI, and another 1% cor CT. Does Benson apply? If so, how do the deductions take place.
User avatar
rosellavera
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:52 pm

Re: Benson Rule (California)

Postby denyse on Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:35 pm

MDT the specific and MDT the CT.
denyse
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Benson Rule (California)

Postby denyse on Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:37 pm

or CVC and/or both depending on DOI
denyse
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Benson Rule (California)

Postby rosellavera on Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:54 pm

Thanks, Denyse.the DOI is 2007. So for settlement purposes, do I have to have two separate stipulated awards?
User avatar
rosellavera
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:52 pm

Re: Benson Rule (California)

Postby zacko1 on Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:22 pm

Given that it appears you have two different DOIs, yes Benson would apply, and you needs two Stips. I believe, given the numbers noted in your post, your CT Stip would be for 8% psych & left knee; the specific DOI would be for 22% for psych & left knee.
zacko1
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:21 am

Re: Benson Rule (California)

Postby denyse on Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:55 pm

17 C 5 = 21% PD. Point's a point.
denyse
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Benson Rule (California)

Postby rosellavera on Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:08 pm

It's still a little foggy.... what if the first DOI, lets say happened in 2001 causes a 40% PD.
The second DOI causes a 60% PD. Both are P&S at the same time. For apportionment purposes, do I deduct the first 40% from the 60%? There are two different carriers.
User avatar
rosellavera
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:52 pm

Re: Benson Rule (California)

Postby denyse on Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:12 pm

Are your saying one injury might be rated under the 1997 PDRS and other under 2005 PDRS?
denyse
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Benson Rule (California)

Postby rosellavera on Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:47 pm

Where I am confused is if there are 2 separate CT periods with 2 different employers/carriers, do you deduct the 1st CT PD from the 2nd CT PD? First CT causes 15% PD. The second causes 25% PD. Since the first injury pre-dates the second, can I deduct 15% from the 25% for a total of 10% PD net on the second case? Sorry if this sounds a little confusing I just spent the last four days in the hospital with god know what. :(
User avatar
rosellavera
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:52 pm

Re: Benson Rule (California)

Postby theAxe on Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:41 pm

If first CT caused 15% and second CT caused 25% then each may be independent of the other depending on body parts, etc.

-- However if the second CT rating states ALL disability to date is 25% from which disability from which the first CT should be apportioned, then one would subtract the 15% from the 25%, etc.

-- Or, if the second CT rating states ALL disability to date is 40% of which 15% disability is from the first CT and 25% disability is due to the second CT, then the result is self evident.

The Benson rule just changed the part of the rating where Wilkerson would have "all areas becoming P&S simultaneously" to be rated combined; whereas Benson requires separate ratings for each injury individually attributed by date of injury -- as if they had occurred separately.

Hopes this helps.
theAxe
theAxe
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:39 am

Next

Return to AMA Guides & Ratings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest