Ogilvie Decision Conflicts With Mathematics (California)

This category is meant for discussion of technical legal issues in workers' compensation. If you are an injured worker, do not ask questions here. Go to the Injured Workers' forum.

Ogilvie Decision Conflicts With Mathematics (California)

Postby bbaxter10 on Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:30 am

For those of you that are math inclined, the attached is a review that I put together as to why the Board's decision is absurd.
Attachments
Analysis of Ogilvie Decision.doc
(76 KiB) Downloaded 370 times
bbaxter10
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:22 am

Re: Ogilvie Decision Conflicts With Mathematics (California)

Postby steelmanlaw on Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:38 pm

BBaxter:

I can't tell whether to be depressed by your results, or enlightened. However, I guess these states of mind are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

On the other hand, we have respite in the form of the Board accepting the suggestion of at least two other sources (publicly) in granting reconsideration apparently/officially on its own motion w/r/t not only Ogilvie but Almaraz/Guzman as well. This temporarily makes your points moot w/r/t Ogilvie only. However, one can only hope that the amici in Ogilvie will focus the Board more on statistical realities this time around. The point is not (or should not be) to devise a system which frustrates the truly work-disabled from seeking benefits and compensation and thereby substantial justice, but rather to arrive at a statistically supportable basis for calculating same fairly.
steelmanlaw
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:34 am

Re: Ogilvie Decision Conflicts With Mathematics (California)

Postby bbaxter10 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:38 am

For those that are of the persuasion that the DFEC adjustment factors in the Schedule can't be rebutted, then the mathematics involved should make you very happy. Personally, I do not envision any method that would allow the court to manipulate the underlying ratios that comprise Tables A and B of the Schedule. My opinion is that if Rand's assumptions are correct, that is, there is a valid statistical significance between the CPDRS standard ratings and the average proportional earnings loss for each specific body part, then the DFEC calculation criteria and the end result of Tables A and B is empirical evidence of the average wage loss suffered by injured workers. It appears that no one is challenging Rand's conclusions, so this does not appear to be an issue before the court. So, the issue that must be decided is whether all injured workers are subject to what is the average as opposed to some individualized compensation plan. Since the latter is a form of individualized wage loss which is not the system adopted by the California legislature, I just do not believe that there is any reasonable argument against the conclusion that the DFEC adjustment factor is an absolute that is not subject to alteration or change. As to fairness, let’s not forget that the Guides do take into account the severity of injuries with the WPI increasing in relationship to same, so the more severely injured are more compensated. Is it fair that an injured worker with a 5% impairment who does not return to work for whatever reason receives the same end disability after some DFEC manipulation as one who returns to work with a 25% standard WPI impairment?
bbaxter10
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:22 am


Return to Legal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron